@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
oh my goodness.
you have missed the entire point. it isnt about 657 at bats or 79 or 15 or 130000. It is not about sample size. it is about what is being attempted with the data.
one person (dallas) is attempting to use statistics to determine HOW a player was able to compile those statistics.
the other person (me) is using statistics to rank players.
it is like comparing apples and elephants. two entirely different things.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
oh my goodness.
you have missed the entire point. it isnt about 657 at bats or 79 or 15 or 130000. It is not about sample size. it is about what is being attempted with the data.
one person (dallas) is attempting to use statistics to determine HOW a player was able to compile those statistics.
the other person (me) is using statistics to rank players.
it is like comparing apples and elephants. two entirely different things.
NO, you are using statistics to identify "Clutch" ability...and relying on statistical faults far worse than you are pointing out in Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre.
For example, why does Trout have such a poor performance in the playoffs? Why is his extra innings OPS low? You said it was low because 79 at bats of it don't lie. Are those stats true? Can you list all the variables to show why they vary from his overrall performance? You had no problem listing a bunch of unfounded variables to discredit Dallass's premise.
Has nothing to do with your historical rankings(which are worthless anyway since you don't know the value of a base on balls).
I'm going to pull the curtain back (a little) and reveal something personal about myself that, while not germane to this debate, does in my mind prove that I not only understand this debate but that I can also explain the disconnect/s happening between different forum members (for anyone who might be confused).
My proof is that , while I never received my college degree, I did attend three colleges/universities (five times) and took philosophy 101 twice as well as 'The History of Sport'.
@craig44 said:
. As much as Dallas wants statistical evidence to be the death knell to careers, there are many possible reasons for "fluke" years or career inconsistency.
You just need to start applying that(and more) for when you attempt to use statistics to discredit players and their reputations because you believe they can't perform in clutch or meaningful situations and claim they "shrink".
That's all. Then you can have it both ways.
PS, some people would rather have someone discredit them by saying they used PEDs than by saying they have some weak mental acuity where they shrink in meaningful situations. Keep that in mind when you slap unfounded insults on someone else like Trout(who by all accounts is a good dude).
Just so it's clear, I am not relying on only 657 at bats to defame Beltre. Sure, those 657 at bats are a part of it and given all of the facts and circumstances I think they raise PEDS to the top of the likely explanations. But that's only the first part of the argument, the second part, the bigger part, is the 6,285 at bats Beltre had through age 30 with an OPS+ of 105 (99 absent the cheating in 2004), and the 4,783 at bats he had after that with an OPS+ of 130. Unlike Trout's postseason or Beltre's 2004 season, there is no "sample" involved here; this is his entire career, and it stinks to high heaven of PED use.
Craig went to great effort to obfuscate my argument, and continues to do so, by focusing only on 2004 (or HR, or whatever bright, shiny object he can find do deflect from my actual argument). What Beltre did in 2004 isn't unprecedented; there may be as many as four other players in history who have done it. But what he did after age 30 is, AFAIK, unprecedented. In combination, what Beltre did is not only unprecedented but so unlikely to have been caused by anything other than PEDs that I feel silly even considering what those other explanations might be.
Back to the oracle, and one of the many questions that Craig hiked his skirt up and ran away from, it is simply inconceivable to me that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of baseball would tell the oracle that they believed Beltre didn't use PEDs. On a related note, if the oracle asked me what Craig would say if the oracle asked him whether Beltre used PEDs, I'd confidently predict that Craig would say "yes, Beltre used PEDs". Craig can't and won't say that here, but we all know that that's what he would say, because Craig does have a rudimentary understanding of baseball and, presumably, doesn't want to be killed by an oracle.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
oh my goodness.
you have missed the entire point. it isnt about 657 at bats or 79 or 15 or 130000. It is not about sample size. it is about what is being attempted with the data.
one person (dallas) is attempting to use statistics to determine HOW a player was able to compile those statistics.
the other person (me) is using statistics to rank players.
it is like comparing apples and elephants. two entirely different things.
NO, you are using statistics to identify "Clutch" ability...and relying on statistical faults far worse than you are pointing out in Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre.
For example, why does Trout have such a poor performance in the playoffs? Why is his extra innings OPS low? You said it was low because 79 at bats of it don't lie. Are those stats true? Can you list all the variables to show why they vary from his overrall performance? You had no problem listing a bunch of unfounded variables to discredit Dallass's premise.
Has nothing to do with your historical rankings(which are worthless anyway since you don't know the value of a base on balls).
still not going to debate Trouty in this thread. start a new one if you want to do that.
again, you are still not getting the point here. apparently, it has gone way over your head.
@craig44 said:
. As much as Dallas wants statistical evidence to be the death knell to careers, there are many possible reasons for "fluke" years or career inconsistency.
You just need to start applying that(and more) for when you attempt to use statistics to discredit players and their reputations because you believe they can't perform in clutch or meaningful situations and claim they "shrink".
That's all. Then you can have it both ways.
PS, some people would rather have someone discredit them by saying they used PEDs than by saying they have some weak mental acuity where they shrink in meaningful situations. Keep that in mind when you slap unfounded insults on someone else like Trout(who by all accounts is a good dude).
did I defame Trouty with unfounded and baseless claims that he used PED?
again, there is a big difference between judging a players efficiency based on their statistical record and using that same statistical record to explain how they were able to produce said numbers. it has nothing at all to do with sample size, it has everything to do with methodology.
I mean, come on, you are a smart guy. how are you not getting this. did i hurt your feelings when i said Trouty was a shrinking violet in his one playoff appearance?
@dallasactuary said:
Just so it's clear, I am not relying on only 657 at bats to defame Beltre. Sure, those 657 at bats are a part of it and given all of the facts and circumstances I think they raise PEDS to the top of the likely explanations. But that's only the first part of the argument, the second part, the bigger part, is the 6,285 at bats Beltre had through age 30 with an OPS+ of 105 (99 absent the cheating in 2004), and the 4,783 at bats he had after that with an OPS+ of 130. Unlike Trout's postseason or Beltre's 2004 season, there is no "sample" involved here; this is his entire career, and it stinks to high heaven of PED use.
Craig went to great effort to obfuscate my argument, and continues to do so, by focusing only on 2004 (or HR, or whatever bright, shiny object he can find do deflect from my actual argument). What Beltre did in 2004 isn't unprecedented; there may be as many as four other players in history who have done it. But what he did after age 30 is, AFAIK, unprecedented. In combination, what Beltre did is not only unprecedented but so unlikely to have been caused by anything other than PEDs that I feel silly even considering what those other explanations might be.
Back to the oracle, and one of the many questions that Craig hiked his skirt up and ran away from, it is simply inconceivable to me that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of baseball would tell the oracle that they believed Beltre didn't use PEDs. On a related note, if the oracle asked me what Craig would say if the oracle asked him whether Beltre used PEDs, I'd confidently predict that Craig would say "yes, Beltre used PEDs". Craig can't and won't say that here, but we all know that that's what he would say, because Craig does have a rudimentary understanding of baseball and, presumably, doesn't want to be killed by an oracle.
just cant get away from the ad hominem attacks can you there Dallas. But, you will never address that now will you? I am not "hiking up my skirt" and running away from your questions, I am rejecting your entire methodology. you are attempting to illustrate HOW Beltre produced by using his production itself as evidence. It isnt logical.
lets say, hypothetically that Beltre's career is in fact singular in the history of all of baseball. Say that Beltre stands alone in the 150 or so years they have been playing MLB and over 20K players in what he was able to accomplish. lets also say, hypothetically, that his career will continue to stand alone for the next 150 years and 20 thousand more players to come.
His statistical record, even if singular over all the years and players, still does not mean he used PED. there are dozens, if not hundreds of possible reasons for a player performing the way he does. Yet you, land on PED. That is your personal bias, not evidence. And admittedly you have defamed Beltres' career with your personal bias.
I interrupt this thread to make an important announcement:
Depending on your source the word "defame" has different definitions. But there does appear to be a general consensus that for a statement to be defamatory it must be false. I was using the word more generally to mean any statement that impugns a person's reputation.
So, I want to issue a correction: I have not defamed Beltre in this thread, nor has Craig44 defamed Trout. I don't want to assume responsibility for picking the correct word since this thread's engine is Craig44's case of the vapors, but a new word is needed.
I now return you to Craig44's series of instruction on which opinions we are allowed to express.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
79 at bats might be a small sample size, but they are the most important AB's. In the most important at bats of his career, Trout shrinks. the numbers dont lie.
In another thread you said that above. I just want to clarify, in this thread, 657 at bats doesn't prove anything....yet 79 does in regard to Trout?
Same about Trout's 15 post season at bats where you and your colleague Countdouglas are so sure, it is as if you can prove the existence of a supreme being off of those fifteen plate appearances.
So the numbers are "lying" based on your perception or opinion. So why are you getting all bent out of shape for Dallas 'defaming' Beltre off of them when you defame Trout(defame his mental acuity/toughness/worthiness etc) off of a sliver of the amount of evidence?
Can't have it both ways.
What
are
you
talking
about?
Dallas is 'defaming' Beltre by attributing an outlying season to PED use with no basis for that belief at all other than he played really well that year.
Did I attribute Trout's shrinking violet postseason statistics to drug use? I don't think so.
I almost forgot your whole "can't have it both ways" tagline. glad you brought that one back out of the mothballs. That one sure hasn't been overused or anything.
I am most certainly not "bent out of shape" over any sports talk forum discussion. Ever. This is where I come when I need to wind down from real-world "bent out of shape" situations.
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
oh my goodness.
you have missed the entire point. it isnt about 657 at bats or 79 or 15 or 130000. It is not about sample size. it is about what is being attempted with the data.
one person (dallas) is attempting to use statistics to determine HOW a player was able to compile those statistics.
the other person (me) is using statistics to rank players.
it is like comparing apples and elephants. two entirely different things.
NO, you are using statistics to identify "Clutch" ability...and relying on statistical faults far worse than you are pointing out in Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre.
For example, why does Trout have such a poor performance in the playoffs? Why is his extra innings OPS low? You said it was low because 79 at bats of it don't lie. Are those stats true? Can you list all the variables to show why they vary from his overrall performance? You had no problem listing a bunch of unfounded variables to discredit Dallass's premise.
Has nothing to do with your historical rankings(which are worthless anyway since you don't know the value of a base on balls).
still not going to debate Trouty in this thread. start a new one if you want to do that.
again, you are still not getting the point here. apparently, it has gone way over your head.
Its gone over your head.
So the 79 at bats don't lie. Why do they not lie when you said that? How can you base your premise on clutch with Trout on 79 at bats?? or the 15 in hte post season? That is what you do.
You are working from a place of bias hence why your use of statistical double standards.
You get worked up about PED because you don't want Clemens to be accused of using them(which he has by a teammate even more so directly than Beltre). As a result, you recognize variables in Beltre's case but ignore them when trying to prove that Trout shrinks in 15 plate appearances.
@craig44 said:
. As much as Dallas wants statistical evidence to be the death knell to careers, there are many possible reasons for "fluke" years or career inconsistency.
You just need to start applying that(and more) for when you attempt to use statistics to discredit players and their reputations because you believe they can't perform in clutch or meaningful situations and claim they "shrink".
That's all. Then you can have it both ways.
PS, some people would rather have someone discredit them by saying they used PEDs than by saying they have some weak mental acuity where they shrink in meaningful situations. Keep that in mind when you slap unfounded insults on someone else like Trout(who by all accounts is a good dude).
did I defame Trouty with unfounded and baseless claims that he used PED?
again, there is a big difference between judging a players efficiency based on their statistical record and using that same statistical record to explain how they were able to produce said numbers. it has nothing at all to do with sample size, it has everything to do with methodology.
I mean, come on, you are a smart guy. how are you not getting this. did i hurt your feelings when i said Trouty was a shrinking violet in his one playoff appearance?
It doesn't hurt my feelings or senses that a player would be considered a shrinking violet in a small sample of 'clutch' at bats because they are shrinking violets in small samples of all at bats all the time in baseball and I understand that.
What hurts my head is that you actually believe it is because of some personality trait or something engrained in their DNA at the root cause of the shrining violetism and then you try to use statistics to prove it, and do a very poor job in attempting to do so. So it is similar to the HOW you bolded in your argument against Dallas's much stronger statistical case than yours in the shrinking violet case.
So it has nothing to do with your historical rankings, which again, have no merit because you do not understand the value of a base on balls or the negative value of an out made.
lets say, hypothetically that Beltre's career is in fact singular in the history of all of baseball. Say that Beltre stands alone in the 150 or so years they have been playing MLB and over 20K players in what he was able to accomplish. lets also say, hypothetically, that his career will continue to stand alone for the next 150 years and 20 thousand more players to come.
His statistical record, even if singular over all the years and players, still does not mean he used PED. there are dozens, if not hundreds of possible reasons for a player performing the way he does. Yet you, land on PED. That is your personal bias, not evidence. And admittedly you have defamed Beltres' career with your personal bias.
I thought this was clear, but Beltre's career is not singular. Barry Bonds' OPS+, for example, improved 28% after age 30. So did Mark Mcgwire's. Sammy Sosa's went up 19%.
Beltre's career would be singular had he accomplished it without cheating, but of course he didn't. As I said, I thought this was already clear in my argument, but obviously it wasn't, at least to you. Now that it is, you can see why your rebuttals, such as they are, haven't actually addressed my point.
If you would just answer my question - the one from the oracle - that would put an end to this whole debate. If you are sane and would tell the oracle that Beltre was a cheater, then any disagreement we have is just on the percentile likelihood (I'm at 98% or so). If you're not sane, and you'd tell the oracle that Beltre didn't cheat, then I would have mercy and stop debating an insane person. Either way, we're just going in circles when you refuse to answer direct questions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
As far as his first few years he started in the majors as a 19 year old which only all time greats do. His career was exactly as expected. Got better as he got a little older and wasnt 19/20 etc anymore, had a career year where power across the league was up, bad injury injury year, wasnt quite as good on a really bad team, several good years and then got old but was still productive but fading when he retired.
lets say, hypothetically that Beltre's career is in fact singular in the history of all of baseball. Say that Beltre stands alone in the 150 or so years they have been playing MLB and over 20K players in what he was able to accomplish. lets also say, hypothetically, that his career will continue to stand alone for the next 150 years and 20 thousand more players to come.
His statistical record, even if singular over all the years and players, still does not mean he used PED. there are dozens, if not hundreds of possible reasons for a player performing the way he does. Yet you, land on PED. That is your personal bias, not evidence. And admittedly you have defamed Beltres' career with your personal bias.
I thought this was clear, but Beltre's career is not singular. Barry Bonds' OPS+, for example, improved 28% after age 30. So did Mark Mcgwire's. Sammy Sosa's went up 19%.
Beltre's career would be singular had he accomplished it without cheating, but of course he didn't. As I said, I thought this was already clear in my argument, but obviously it wasn't, at least to you. Now that it is, you can see why your rebuttals, such as they are, haven't actually addressed my point.
If you would just answer my question - the one from the oracle - that would put an end to this whole debate. If you are sane and would tell the oracle that Beltre was a cheater, then any disagreement we have is just on the percentile likelihood (I'm at 98% or so). If you're not sane, and you'd tell the oracle that Beltre didn't cheat, then I would have mercy and stop debating an insane person. Either way, we're just going in circles when you refuse to answer direct questions.
again, you are making truth statements when you, in fact, are doing nothing but speculating. You cannot use the statistical record to arrive at HOW that record was produced.
also, there is no oracle. good grief. that horse has been beaten to death.
@craig44 said:
again, you are making truth statements when you, in fact, are doing nothing but speculating. You cannot use the statistical record to arrive at HOW that record was produced.
Yes, I can. And I am. With a very high degree of certainty. I'm just trying to get you to tell me what your degree of certainty is looking at the same evidence.
also, there is no oracle. good grief. that horse has been beaten to death.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of "hypothetical". You look it up and then you can answer the question. And it will only become "beating a dead horse" when you answer the question and then I keep asking it anyway. Or maybe you mean that I have already established that you are cowardly avoiding my question, so I can stop now? Your answer to my question really would advance the conversation, since what you've said so far makes so little sense, so I'll keep trying.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Absolutely correct, and an average hitter's balls are going to be caught in LA and Seattle while some of those same fly balls are going to be home runs in Texas and obviously in Boston.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
again, you are making truth statements when you, in fact, are doing nothing but speculating. You cannot use the statistical record to arrive at HOW that record was produced.
Yes, I can. And I am. With a very high degree of certainty. I'm just trying to get you to tell me what your degree of certainty is looking at the same evidence.
also, there is no oracle. good grief. that horse has been beaten to death.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of "hypothetical". You look it up and then you can answer the question. And it will only become "beating a dead horse" when you answer the question and then I keep asking it anyway. Or maybe you mean that I have already established that you are cowardly avoiding my question, so I can stop now? Your answer to my question really would advance the conversation, since what you've said so far makes so little sense, so I'll keep trying.
Nah, you dont have a high degree of certainty. You THINK you do. and it is very very important to you that other people feel the same way you do, but you dont know. I ticked off at least a dozen examples of reasons Beltre may have had a singular season in 2004. there are dozens if not hundreds of other reasons. yet, you always arive at PED. you have no basis to do so, other than your own personal bias.
Nah, you dont have a high degree of certainty. You THINK you do.
But I do have a high degree of certainty. And if you'd think about it for just one second, you'd understand why your second sentence here makes absolutely no sense.
@craig44 said:
I ticked off at least a dozen examples of reasons Beltre may have had a singular season in 2004. there are dozens if not hundreds of other reasons. yet, you always arive at PED.
You did tick off a number of reasons, and you left out hundreds if not thousands of others (his body was taken over by the spirit of Babe Ruth, for example). But I found all of your alternative reasons unconvincing, and several of them downright silly. Which is where some actual back and forth would be so helpful. I believe - in fact, I'm pretty near certain - that the PEDs reason is the overwhelmingly most likely reason. That's what I'd tell the oracle, for sure. What would you tell the oracle? When there are 100 available reasons, this does not mean that each reason is 1% likely, although from your posts I'm not sure you understand that.
@craig44 said:
you have no basis to do so, other than your own personal bias.
Nah, you dont have a high degree of certainty. You THINK you do.
But I do have a high degree of certainty. And if you'd think about it for just one second, you'd understand why your second sentence here makes absolutely no sense.
@craig44 said:
I ticked off at least a dozen examples of reasons Beltre may have had a singular season in 2004. there are dozens if not hundreds of other reasons. yet, you always arive at PED.
You did tick off a number of reasons, and you left out hundreds if not thousands of others (his body was taken over by the spirit of Babe Ruth, for example). But I found all of your alternative reasons unconvincing, and several of them downright silly. Which is where some actual back and forth would be so helpful. I believe - in fact, I'm pretty near certain - that the PEDs reason is the overwhelmingly most likely reason. That's what I'd tell the oracle, for sure. What would you tell the oracle? When there are 100 available reasons, this does not mean that each reason is 1% likely, although from your posts I'm not sure you understand that.
@craig44 said:
you have no basis to do so, other than your own personal bias.
These are the 2 most important words in your post.
you believe. you do not know. if you do not know, stop making truth statements.
I never - let me spell that out for you N E V E R - said that I "know" that Beltre used PEDs. I said I was about 98% sure, I said it was my opinion, I've said before that I "believed" it, I've said that's what I'd tell the oracle that makes you wet your pants if it asked me, I've said it's by far the most likely conclusion to reach based on the available evidence, and probably a few more things, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Which brings us here. Either you aren't reading anything I post (unlikely) or you aren't understanding anything I post (very likely). And since you aren't understanding anything I post, and won't even acknowledge the parts you do understand, what have you left me for entertainment but ad hominem attacks? Hand to God, the ad hominem attacks stop the instant you grow a pair and start answering my questions. I'll leave the oracle out of it since you're ascared of it, and just ask this: do you believe that it is more likely than not that Beltre used PEDs?
But if you won't answer even simple, straightforward questions like that, I guess I could go back through the archives and count the number of "truth statements" - did Orwell give you that phrase or did you make it up yourself? - you've made even though you didn't "know" for certain? Might take me the rest of the year to count them all, but maybe seeing the heights of your own hypocrisy would make you understand just how ridiculous you are being in this thread.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Fun fact: Beltre never had a negative oWAR in his career. Brooks achieved that five times.
Fun fact: an OPS+ of 101 over a 5 year period is "just not good". Brooks had a career 105 and was under 100 in 9 of the 20 seasons he played 50+ games (and all 3 of the seasons he played less).
@thisistheshow said:
It is a known fact that Jim Rice didn't use PEDs.
That is pure speculation. How dare you make a truth statement about something you don't know! Dallas will say that the stats all show that he sucked so he wasn't using PEDs, but you can't use stats to explain HOW Jim Rice managed to suck as hard as he did; there are a million reasons why he might have sucked even if he was using PEDs.
Signed,
Craig44
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@Brick said:
I wonder what Babe Ruth was on. He must have been years ahead of his time.
Your first sentence is approved since you are merely wondering. But your second sentence is doubleplus bad. You do not KNOW that Babe Ruth was "ahead of his time", that is pure speculation and you have expressed it as a truth statement. This is your first and final warning. In the future you are hereby instructed to say "In my opinion, it is possible, although there are many other possibilities, that Babe Ruth may have been somewhat ahead timewise."
Signed,
Craig44
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@thisistheshow said:
It is a known fact that Jim Rice didn't use PEDs.
That is pure speculation. How dare you make a truth statement about something you don't know! Dallas will say that the stats all show that he sucked so he wasn't using PEDs, but you can't use stats to explain HOW Jim Rice managed to suck as hard as he did; there are a million reasons why he might have sucked even if he was using PEDs.
@Mickey71 said:
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Fun fact: Beltre never had a negative oWAR in his career. Brooks achieved that five times.
Fun fact: an OPS+ of 101 over a 5 year period is "just not good". Brooks had a career 105 and was under 100 in 9 of the 20 seasons he played 50+ games (and all 3 of the seasons he played less).
And no one considered Robinson a good hitter. As the exercise hypothesized something changed for Beltre when he went to Boston, it's interesting to compare each player's first eleven full seasons, 1958 and 1960 to 1969 for Robinson and 1999 to 2009 for Beltre. I included the 88 games Robinson played in 1959 because it was too much trouble to omit. I also left in 2004 for Beltre which I think we can all admit was at least suspicious because I'm not sure if it helps my argument to leave it out, and my argument is strong enough anyway.
Robinson's OPS+ was 111 to Beltre's 106. His oWar was 35.3 to Beltre's 30.6. So, I stand by my statement that in Los Angeles and Seattle Beltre was distinctly worse offensively and much worse defensively, though of course it is possible to be a very good or even great defensive third baseman and be much worse than Robinson.
Just for fun I took a look at players who had careers similar in duration to Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle sorted by Batting Runs. Specifically, I looked at players who had careers between 1550 and 1650 games (Beltre had 1604). Beltre's 66 Rbat puts him smack in the middle of a bunch of players who played between 1884 and 1932, but the closest relatively modern comparisons were Adam LaRoche and Mike Lowell. Again not people I'd call good hitters. Players with more than double his Rbat include Lonnie Smith, Jayson Werth, and Cliff Floyd.
Now, recall that Beltre generated an astounding 82% of his Rbat in 2004.
These are the 2 most important words in your post.
you believe. you do not know. if you do not know, stop making truth statements.
I never - let me spell that out for you N E V E R - said that I "know" that Beltre used PEDs. I said I was about 98% sure, I said it was my opinion, I've said before that I "believed" it, I've said that's what I'd tell the oracle that makes you wet your pants if it asked me, I've said it's by far the most likely conclusion to reach based on the available evidence, and probably a few more things, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Which brings us here. Either you aren't reading anything I post (unlikely) or you aren't understanding anything I post (very likely). And since you aren't understanding anything I post, and won't even acknowledge the parts you do understand, what have you left me for entertainment but ad hominem attacks? Hand to God, the ad hominem attacks stop the instant you grow a pair and start answering my questions. I'll leave the oracle out of it since you're ascared of it, and just ask this: do you believe that it is more likely than not that Beltre used PEDs?
But if you won't answer even simple, straightforward questions like that, I guess I could go back through the archives and count the number of "truth statements" - did Orwell give you that phrase or did you make it up yourself? - you've made even though you didn't "know" for certain? Might take me the rest of the year to count them all, but maybe seeing the heights of your own hypocrisy would make you understand just how ridiculous you are being in this thread.
again, ad hominem attacks. you must lead a very sad life if the best you can do is go onto an internet message board and try to insult others.
I used to be just like you with regard to PED. I was VERY anti. Then I came to the conclusion, that other than for those who were either proven to have used or admitted to using, it was ALL speculation. I may have suspicions and you may as well, but ultimately, that is exactly what they are. suspicions. I choose not to defame or libel a career if I do not know the truth. for most of these guys, we will never know the truth. You CHOOSE to make truth statements when you do not know the truth.
One thing is very clear in all this though: I am truly starting to enjoy my stay here in your head. I am planning on rearranging the furniture and swapping out the decor, but it is very comfortable here. You know, in your head.
@Brick said:
I wonder what Babe Ruth was on. He must have been years ahead of his time.
Your first sentence is approved since you are merely wondering. But your second sentence is doubleplus bad. You do not KNOW that Babe Ruth was "ahead of his time", that is pure speculation and you have expressed it as a truth statement. This is your first and final warning. In the future you are hereby instructed to say "In my opinion, it is possible, although there are many other possibilities, that Babe Ruth may have been somewhat ahead timewise."
Signed,
Craig44
This is awesome!! I am so in your head you are posting AS ME!!! To other people!!!
Man, this recliner is really comfortable. You know, the one in your head.
These are the 2 most important words in your post.
you believe. you do not know. if you do not know, stop making truth statements.
I never - let me spell that out for you N E V E R - said that I "know" that Beltre used PEDs. I said I was about 98% sure, I said it was my opinion, I've said before that I "believed" it, I've said that's what I'd tell the oracle that makes you wet your pants if it asked me, I've said it's by far the most likely conclusion to reach based on the available evidence, and probably a few more things, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Which brings us here. Either you aren't reading anything I post (unlikely) or you aren't understanding anything I post (very likely). And since you aren't understanding anything I post, and won't even acknowledge the parts you do understand, what have you left me for entertainment but ad hominem attacks? Hand to God, the ad hominem attacks stop the instant you grow a pair and start answering my questions. I'll leave the oracle out of it since you're ascared of it, and just ask this: do you believe that it is more likely than not that Beltre used PEDs?
But if you won't answer even simple, straightforward questions like that, I guess I could go back through the archives and count the number of "truth statements" - did Orwell give you that phrase or did you make it up yourself? - you've made even though you didn't "know" for certain? Might take me the rest of the year to count them all, but maybe seeing the heights of your own hypocrisy would make you understand just how ridiculous you are being in this thread.
again, ad hominem attacks. you must lead a very sad life if the best you can do is go onto an internet message board and try to insult others.
I used to be just like you with regard to PED. I was VERY anti. Then I came to the conclusion, that other than for those who were either proven to have used or admitted to using, it was ALL speculation. I may have suspicions and you may as well, but ultimately, that is exactly what they are. suspicions. I choose not to defame or libel a career if I do not know the truth. for most of these guys, we will never know the truth. You CHOOSE to make truth statements when you do not know the truth.
One thing is very clear in all this though: I am truly starting to enjoy my stay here in your head. I am planning on rearranging the furniture and swapping out the decor, but it is very comfortable here. You know, in your head.
These are the 2 most important words in your post.
you believe. you do not know. if you do not know, stop making truth statements.
I never - let me spell that out for you N E V E R - said that I "know" that Beltre used PEDs. I said I was about 98% sure, I said it was my opinion, I've said before that I "believed" it, I've said that's what I'd tell the oracle that makes you wet your pants if it asked me, I've said it's by far the most likely conclusion to reach based on the available evidence, and probably a few more things, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Which brings us here. Either you aren't reading anything I post (unlikely) or you aren't understanding anything I post (very likely). And since you aren't understanding anything I post, and won't even acknowledge the parts you do understand, what have you left me for entertainment but ad hominem attacks? Hand to God, the ad hominem attacks stop the instant you grow a pair and start answering my questions. I'll leave the oracle out of it since you're ascared of it, and just ask this: do you believe that it is more likely than not that Beltre used PEDs?
But if you won't answer even simple, straightforward questions like that, I guess I could go back through the archives and count the number of "truth statements" - did Orwell give you that phrase or did you make it up yourself? - you've made even though you didn't "know" for certain? Might take me the rest of the year to count them all, but maybe seeing the heights of your own hypocrisy would make you understand just how ridiculous you are being in this thread.
again, ad hominem attacks. you must lead a very sad life if the best you can do is go onto an internet message board and try to insult others.
I used to be just like you with regard to PED. I was VERY anti. Then I came to the conclusion, that other than for those who were either proven to have used or admitted to using, it was ALL speculation. I may have suspicions and you may as well, but ultimately, that is exactly what they are. suspicions. I choose not to defame or libel a career if I do not know the truth. for most of these guys, we will never know the truth. You CHOOSE to make truth statements when you do not know the truth.
One thing is very clear in all this though: I am truly starting to enjoy my stay here in your head. I am planning on rearranging the furniture and swapping out the decor, but it is very comfortable here. You know, in your head.
...
This thread even has feng shui
Thank you @thisistheshow! this is really helpful. I will have this place set up in no time!! I just need to find some photos of Tommy to hang in the living room.
You know what else lives in my head? When I was a kid our neighbor's dog attacked a rabbit; didn't kill it but injured it badly. Until that day I had no idea that rabbits could make noise at all, let alone the horrible shrieking noise that this rabbit made. It was terrifying when it happened and it still gives me chills to this day if I see a wounded animal. You, dying rabbits, other similar things, that's what's living in my head; you are the only one gracious enough to redecorate, though, so thank you.
And don't bother asking the dying rabbit any questions; he won't answer them, either so there's another thing you two have in common.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
You know what else lives in my head? When I was a kid our neighbor's dog attacked a rabbit; didn't kill it but injured it badly. Until that day I had no idea that rabbits could make noise at all, let alone the horrible shrieking noise that this rabbit made. It was terrifying when it happened and it still gives me chills to this day if I see a wounded animal. You, dying rabbits, other similar things, that's what's living in my head; you are the only one gracious enough to redecorate, though, so thank you.
And don't bother asking the dying rabbit any questions; he won't answer them, either so there's another thing you two have in common.
Now you are talking about rabbits. In the Sports Talk forum.
Am I stomping around too much? Is the music too loud?
for me personally, the most redeeming aspect of this legendary thread isn't a dead horse that's being bludgeoned to the point of disintegrating, it's showstopper wandering into the line of fire like he's drunk and doesn't know where he is, exiting, then wobbling back in time and again
Now you are talking about rabbits. In the Sports Talk forum.
Am I stomping around too much? Is the music too loud?
you know,
where I am currently living. In your head...
Yes, rabbits. I thought maybe you knew what those were so you'd understand what I was talking about. I see I was too optimistic. They are small, fuzzy animals who hop around and don't bother anyone. My point in using them was that they are capable of emitting sounds that would make you lose your mind and pray to God Almighty to make it stop. My neighbor made it stop by putting a bullet in the poor rabbit's head. I don't think my old neighbor can be of any help this time, though.
And no, I'm fine with you living in my head. If you're stomping or playing music I can't hear it. It's only the shrieking of the rabbits that bothers me, and I am only reminded of that when you post here. What you're doing in my head doesn't concern me; it's what you're doing here that calls to mind the dying wail of a half-skinned rabbit. Oh, and while you're in there, in addition to decorating, there's a whole lot of information about the uses of statistics, and logic, particularly avoiding logical fallacies. You can help yourself to any of it. No charge. And if you do go through enough of it, you'll figure out that Adrian Beltre and Roger Clemens were epic cheaters, and the rabbits will be at peace.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
This might have been discussed before, but I am bringing it up because I have seen recent, unexpected breakthroughs in our collective abilities to both reason through and articulate arguments. It may be a question worth revisiting here or in another thread.
Is Tom Brady the GOAT?
...greatest quarterback of all time, that is ...
What sparked my idea for this comment is what @dallasactuary said about logical fallacies in the recent comment above.
I don't know if he is or not, but I warn everyone not to make a truth statement one way or the other. Craig44 and the rest of the ministry of truth are watching.....
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Now you are talking about rabbits. In the Sports Talk forum.
Am I stomping around too much? Is the music too loud?
you know,
where I am currently living. In your head...
Yes, rabbits. I thought maybe you knew what those were so you'd understand what I was talking about. I see I was too optimistic. They are small, fuzzy animals who hop around and don't bother anyone. My point in using them was that they are capable of emitting sounds that would make you lose your mind and pray to God Almighty to make it stop. My neighbor made it stop by putting a bullet in the poor rabbit's head. I don't think my old neighbor can be of any help this time, though.
And no, I'm fine with you living in my head. If you're stomping or playing music I can't hear it. It's only the shrieking of the rabbits that bothers me, and I am only reminded of that when you post here. What you're doing in my head doesn't concern me; it's what you're doing here that calls to mind the dying wail of a half-skinned rabbit. Oh, and while you're in there, in addition to decorating, there's a whole lot of information about the uses of statistics, and logic, particularly avoiding logical fallacies. You can help yourself to any of it. No charge. And if you do go through enough of it, you'll figure out that Adrian Beltre and Roger Clemens were epic cheaters, and the rabbits will be at peace.
bwwaaahahahahhha. rabbits.
back to the topic. your methodology is so bad. you just dont see it. or refuse to see it. I cant tell which
I don't know if he is or not, but I warn everyone not to make a truth statement one way or the other. Craig44 and the rest of the ministry of truth are watching.....
Comments
These pretzels are This popcorn is making me thirsty.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams could be a sponsor for your threads.> @craig44 said:
Every word you used to discredit Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre, you can multiply those words/thoughts by 1,000 and apply them to your statistical stance you used to try and prove Trout isn't capable of hitting in the big moments., isn't clutch, or whatever incorrect nonsense you spew about it. That is how wrong you are on Trout, no matter how much you try and spin it.
You then use your 'evidence' to try and defame Trout. Even though your evidence is severely lacking and can reasonably be explained because of other factors, just like you attempt to do with Beltre and Dallas's evidence that has more merit than your "79 at bats that do not lie," lol.
Tell me again how 79 at bats proves your point about Trout.
Even in your response you double down and put a dig on Trout and his 15 post season plate appearance as if 15 plate appearances will support any of your incorrect ideas.
Yes, you can't have it both ways. It is used often because of arguments like yours that requires it to be.
Spin it any way you attempt, whether you understand it or not, because....
In the end, all you did was paint yourself into a corner.
Perhaps Sherwin Williams can be a sponsor of your posts
Nah. if you want to discuss Trouty, do it in another thread.
I really dont think reading comprehension is your jam. your Trout discussion and the Beltre discussion here are two completely different animals.
Dallas is attempting to use statistics to prove that one player used PED and "cheated"
I dont even remember the whole Trouty discussion. I imagine I was using statistics to rank Trout among other players.
cant you see the difference??? it is not rocket science.
one person is using statistics in an attempt to convince people HOW a player was able to compile those numbers
the other person is using statistics to rank a player amongst his peers/other players.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No it isn't rocket science. You just wiped 657 pieces of statistical evidence that Dallas was using to support a claim by classifying them as "Fluke", but yet you can't see an even worse statistical problem by saying "79 at bats do not lie," to support a statistical claim on Trout's ability/inability to perform in 'clutch' moments?
Or even worse, not seeing the randomness problem by relying on 15 plate appearances in the post season to support any type of notion about traits that Trout may or may not possess?
Why is it ok to refute a statistical notion with 657 pieces of evidence, and then support a different statistical claim with only 79 or 15 pieces of evidence?
Dallas sees that his statistical evidence with Beltre has some merit. You are saying it doesn't. We are relying on a statistical claim, not a judgement claim. If it is a judgement claim, then Beltre is most likely guilty by virtue of his teammate having first hand accounts.
You are telling Dallas it is not statistically possible to come to any conclusion about Beltre. Yet you and other use statistical evidence to come to conclusions about Trout and his clutch nonsense, yet your statistical evidence is pure crap compared to the evidence Dallas is using. Hence why I said you can't have it both ways.
I don't think baseball evaluation is your jam...in addition to reading comprehension not being it either.
oh my goodness.
you have missed the entire point. it isnt about 657 at bats or 79 or 15 or 130000. It is not about sample size. it is about what is being attempted with the data.
one person (dallas) is attempting to use statistics to determine HOW a player was able to compile those statistics.
the other person (me) is using statistics to rank players.
it is like comparing apples and elephants. two entirely different things.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
NO, you are using statistics to identify "Clutch" ability...and relying on statistical faults far worse than you are pointing out in Dallas's statistical evidence on Beltre.
For example, why does Trout have such a poor performance in the playoffs? Why is his extra innings OPS low? You said it was low because 79 at bats of it don't lie. Are those stats true? Can you list all the variables to show why they vary from his overrall performance? You had no problem listing a bunch of unfounded variables to discredit Dallass's premise.
Has nothing to do with your historical rankings(which are worthless anyway since you don't know the value of a base on balls).
I'm going to pull the curtain back (a little) and reveal something personal about myself that, while not germane to this debate, does in my mind prove that I not only understand this debate but that I can also explain the disconnect/s happening between different forum members (for anyone who might be confused).
My proof is that , while I never received my college degree, I did attend three colleges/universities (five times) and took philosophy 101 twice as well as 'The History of Sport'.
PM me if you want a thisistheshow breakdown
You just need to start applying that(and more) for when you attempt to use statistics to discredit players and their reputations because you believe they can't perform in clutch or meaningful situations and claim they "shrink".
That's all. Then you can have it both ways.
PS, some people would rather have someone discredit them by saying they used PEDs than by saying they have some weak mental acuity where they shrink in meaningful situations. Keep that in mind when you slap unfounded insults on someone else like Trout(who by all accounts is a good dude).
Just so it's clear, I am not relying on only 657 at bats to defame Beltre. Sure, those 657 at bats are a part of it and given all of the facts and circumstances I think they raise PEDS to the top of the likely explanations. But that's only the first part of the argument, the second part, the bigger part, is the 6,285 at bats Beltre had through age 30 with an OPS+ of 105 (99 absent the cheating in 2004), and the 4,783 at bats he had after that with an OPS+ of 130. Unlike Trout's postseason or Beltre's 2004 season, there is no "sample" involved here; this is his entire career, and it stinks to high heaven of PED use.
Craig went to great effort to obfuscate my argument, and continues to do so, by focusing only on 2004 (or HR, or whatever bright, shiny object he can find do deflect from my actual argument). What Beltre did in 2004 isn't unprecedented; there may be as many as four other players in history who have done it. But what he did after age 30 is, AFAIK, unprecedented. In combination, what Beltre did is not only unprecedented but so unlikely to have been caused by anything other than PEDs that I feel silly even considering what those other explanations might be.
Back to the oracle, and one of the many questions that Craig hiked his skirt up and ran away from, it is simply inconceivable to me that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of baseball would tell the oracle that they believed Beltre didn't use PEDs. On a related note, if the oracle asked me what Craig would say if the oracle asked him whether Beltre used PEDs, I'd confidently predict that Craig would say "yes, Beltre used PEDs". Craig can't and won't say that here, but we all know that that's what he would say, because Craig does have a rudimentary understanding of baseball and, presumably, doesn't want to be killed by an oracle.
All I can say is that if I were a defense attorney, I'd definitely want David ( @craig44 ) on my jury.
still not going to debate Trouty in this thread. start a new one if you want to do that.
again, you are still not getting the point here. apparently, it has gone way over your head.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
did I defame Trouty with unfounded and baseless claims that he used PED?
again, there is a big difference between judging a players efficiency based on their statistical record and using that same statistical record to explain how they were able to produce said numbers. it has nothing at all to do with sample size, it has everything to do with methodology.
I mean, come on, you are a smart guy. how are you not getting this. did i hurt your feelings when i said Trouty was a shrinking violet in his one playoff appearance?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
just cant get away from the ad hominem attacks can you there Dallas. But, you will never address that now will you? I am not "hiking up my skirt" and running away from your questions, I am rejecting your entire methodology. you are attempting to illustrate HOW Beltre produced by using his production itself as evidence. It isnt logical.
lets say, hypothetically that Beltre's career is in fact singular in the history of all of baseball. Say that Beltre stands alone in the 150 or so years they have been playing MLB and over 20K players in what he was able to accomplish. lets also say, hypothetically, that his career will continue to stand alone for the next 150 years and 20 thousand more players to come.
His statistical record, even if singular over all the years and players, still does not mean he used PED. there are dozens, if not hundreds of possible reasons for a player performing the way he does. Yet you, land on PED. That is your personal bias, not evidence. And admittedly you have defamed Beltres' career with your personal bias.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I interrupt this thread to make an important announcement:
Depending on your source the word "defame" has different definitions. But there does appear to be a general consensus that for a statement to be defamatory it must be false. I was using the word more generally to mean any statement that impugns a person's reputation.
So, I want to issue a correction: I have not defamed Beltre in this thread, nor has Craig44 defamed Trout. I don't want to assume responsibility for picking the correct word since this thread's engine is Craig44's case of the vapors, but a new word is needed.
I now return you to Craig44's series of instruction on which opinions we are allowed to express.
Its gone over your head.
So the 79 at bats don't lie. Why do they not lie when you said that? How can you base your premise on clutch with Trout on 79 at bats?? or the 15 in hte post season? That is what you do.
You are working from a place of bias hence why your use of statistical double standards.
You get worked up about PED because you don't want Clemens to be accused of using them(which he has by a teammate even more so directly than Beltre). As a result, you recognize variables in Beltre's case but ignore them when trying to prove that Trout shrinks in 15 plate appearances.
It doesn't hurt my feelings or senses that a player would be considered a shrinking violet in a small sample of 'clutch' at bats because they are shrinking violets in small samples of all at bats all the time in baseball and I understand that.
What hurts my head is that you actually believe it is because of some personality trait or something engrained in their DNA at the root cause of the shrining violetism and then you try to use statistics to prove it, and do a very poor job in attempting to do so. So it is similar to the HOW you bolded in your argument against Dallas's much stronger statistical case than yours in the shrinking violet case.
So it has nothing to do with your historical rankings, which again, have no merit because you do not understand the value of a base on balls or the negative value of an out made.
I interrupt this thread to make another important announcement:
Roger Clemens used PEDs, too.
I now return you to Craig44's series of instruction on which opinions we are allowed to express.
I thought this was clear, but Beltre's career is not singular. Barry Bonds' OPS+, for example, improved 28% after age 30. So did Mark Mcgwire's. Sammy Sosa's went up 19%.
Beltre's career would be singular had he accomplished it without cheating, but of course he didn't. As I said, I thought this was already clear in my argument, but obviously it wasn't, at least to you. Now that it is, you can see why your rebuttals, such as they are, haven't actually addressed my point.
If you would just answer my question - the one from the oracle - that would put an end to this whole debate. If you are sane and would tell the oracle that Beltre was a cheater, then any disagreement we have is just on the percentile likelihood (I'm at 98% or so). If you're not sane, and you'd tell the oracle that Beltre didn't cheat, then I would have mercy and stop debating an insane person. Either way, we're just going in circles when you refuse to answer direct questions.
Years 8-12 he stunk in basically every offensive category. It was such a bummer for the Mariners. He was a complete waste of time and money. In his first 12 years he had 1 great year. I believe something was quite obvious after that.
Beltre didnt stink in Seattle. His first year wasnt great but wasnt awful either and Seattle was a horrible team. The one year there he was bad was his final year when he took a bad hop on a ground ball right to the groin and again for whatever reason never wore a cup. The other 3 years he was good and two of those years Seattle was awful.
As far as his first few years he started in the majors as a 19 year old which only all time greats do. His career was exactly as expected. Got better as he got a little older and wasnt 19/20 etc anymore, had a career year where power across the league was up, bad injury injury year, wasnt quite as good on a really bad team, several good years and then got old but was still productive but fading when he retired.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
again, you are making truth statements when you, in fact, are doing nothing but speculating. You cannot use the statistical record to arrive at HOW that record was produced.
also, there is no oracle. good grief. that horse has been beaten to death.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yes, I can. And I am. With a very high degree of certainty. I'm just trying to get you to tell me what your degree of certainty is looking at the same evidence.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of "hypothetical". You look it up and then you can answer the question. And it will only become "beating a dead horse" when you answer the question and then I keep asking it anyway. Or maybe you mean that I have already established that you are cowardly avoiding my question, so I can stop now? Your answer to my question really would advance the conversation, since what you've said so far makes so little sense, so I'll keep trying.
21.2 WAR over five years and $64,000,000. Not terrible, but the vast majority of that s credited to his defense. A 101 OPS+ is just not good over a five year period. With the exception of 2005, Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle makes him look like a poor man's Brooks Robinson. Average hitter, very good fielder. Maybe even great fielder. Just not quite as good a hitter as Brooks and not quite as good a fielder.
Absolutely correct, and an average hitter's balls are going to be caught in LA and Seattle while some of those same fly balls are going to be home runs in Texas and obviously in Boston.
Nah, you dont have a high degree of certainty. You THINK you do. and it is very very important to you that other people feel the same way you do, but you dont know. I ticked off at least a dozen examples of reasons Beltre may have had a singular season in 2004. there are dozens if not hundreds of other reasons. yet, you always arive at PED. you have no basis to do so, other than your own personal bias.
And yes, I fully understand hypotheticals.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
But I do have a high degree of certainty. And if you'd think about it for just one second, you'd understand why your second sentence here makes absolutely no sense.
You did tick off a number of reasons, and you left out hundreds if not thousands of others (his body was taken over by the spirit of Babe Ruth, for example). But I found all of your alternative reasons unconvincing, and several of them downright silly. Which is where some actual back and forth would be so helpful. I believe - in fact, I'm pretty near certain - that the PEDs reason is the overwhelmingly most likely reason. That's what I'd tell the oracle, for sure. What would you tell the oracle? When there are 100 available reasons, this does not mean that each reason is 1% likely, although from your posts I'm not sure you understand that.
Not so, I have a statistical basis for my belief.
Then why does the thought of answering a hypothetical question make you cry like a little girl?
ad hominem attacks. it is what you are best at. does it make you feel good?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@dallasactuary
" I believe"
These are the 2 most important words in your post.
you believe. you do not know. if you do not know, stop making truth statements.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yeah, kind of; but only because you react like such a whiny beeyotch that it makes me laugh.
I never - let me spell that out for you N E V E R - said that I "know" that Beltre used PEDs. I said I was about 98% sure, I said it was my opinion, I've said before that I "believed" it, I've said that's what I'd tell the oracle that makes you wet your pants if it asked me, I've said it's by far the most likely conclusion to reach based on the available evidence, and probably a few more things, but those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Which brings us here. Either you aren't reading anything I post (unlikely) or you aren't understanding anything I post (very likely). And since you aren't understanding anything I post, and won't even acknowledge the parts you do understand, what have you left me for entertainment but ad hominem attacks? Hand to God, the ad hominem attacks stop the instant you grow a pair and start answering my questions. I'll leave the oracle out of it since you're ascared of it, and just ask this: do you believe that it is more likely than not that Beltre used PEDs?
But if you won't answer even simple, straightforward questions like that, I guess I could go back through the archives and count the number of "truth statements" - did Orwell give you that phrase or did you make it up yourself? - you've made even though you didn't "know" for certain? Might take me the rest of the year to count them all, but maybe seeing the heights of your own hypocrisy would make you understand just how ridiculous you are being in this thread.
Fun fact: Beltre never had a negative oWAR in his career. Brooks achieved that five times.
Fun fact: an OPS+ of 101 over a 5 year period is "just not good". Brooks had a career 105 and was under 100 in 9 of the 20 seasons he played 50+ games (and all 3 of the seasons he played less).
It is a known fact that Jim Rice didn't use PEDs.
That is pure speculation. How dare you make a truth statement about something you don't know! Dallas will say that the stats all show that he sucked so he wasn't using PEDs, but you can't use stats to explain HOW Jim Rice managed to suck as hard as he did; there are a million reasons why he might have sucked even if he was using PEDs.
Signed,
Craig44
I wonder what Babe Ruth was on. He must have been years ahead of his time.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Your first sentence is approved since you are merely wondering. But your second sentence is doubleplus bad. You do not KNOW that Babe Ruth was "ahead of his time", that is pure speculation and you have expressed it as a truth statement. This is your first and final warning. In the future you are hereby instructed to say "In my opinion, it is possible, although there are many other possibilities, that Babe Ruth may have been somewhat ahead timewise."
Signed,
Craig44
..
Wow, I really set myself up for that one. Lol
And no one considered Robinson a good hitter. As the exercise hypothesized something changed for Beltre when he went to Boston, it's interesting to compare each player's first eleven full seasons, 1958 and 1960 to 1969 for Robinson and 1999 to 2009 for Beltre. I included the 88 games Robinson played in 1959 because it was too much trouble to omit. I also left in 2004 for Beltre which I think we can all admit was at least suspicious because I'm not sure if it helps my argument to leave it out, and my argument is strong enough anyway.
Robinson's OPS+ was 111 to Beltre's 106. His oWar was 35.3 to Beltre's 30.6. So, I stand by my statement that in Los Angeles and Seattle Beltre was distinctly worse offensively and much worse defensively, though of course it is possible to be a very good or even great defensive third baseman and be much worse than Robinson.
Just for fun I took a look at players who had careers similar in duration to Beltre's time in Los Angeles and Seattle sorted by Batting Runs. Specifically, I looked at players who had careers between 1550 and 1650 games (Beltre had 1604). Beltre's 66 Rbat puts him smack in the middle of a bunch of players who played between 1884 and 1932, but the closest relatively modern comparisons were Adam LaRoche and Mike Lowell. Again not people I'd call good hitters. Players with more than double his Rbat include Lonnie Smith, Jayson Werth, and Cliff Floyd.
Now, recall that Beltre generated an astounding 82% of his Rbat in 2004.
again, ad hominem attacks. you must lead a very sad life if the best you can do is go onto an internet message board and try to insult others.
I used to be just like you with regard to PED. I was VERY anti. Then I came to the conclusion, that other than for those who were either proven to have used or admitted to using, it was ALL speculation. I may have suspicions and you may as well, but ultimately, that is exactly what they are. suspicions. I choose not to defame or libel a career if I do not know the truth. for most of these guys, we will never know the truth. You CHOOSE to make truth statements when you do not know the truth.
One thing is very clear in all this though: I am truly starting to enjoy my stay here in your head. I am planning on rearranging the furniture and swapping out the decor, but it is very comfortable here. You know, in your head.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This is awesome!! I am so in your head you are posting AS ME!!! To other people!!!
Man, this recliner is really comfortable. You know, the one in your head.
hahahahahaha
bwahahahahahah
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
...
This thread even has feng shui
Thank you @thisistheshow! this is really helpful. I will have this place set up in no time!! I just need to find some photos of Tommy to hang in the living room.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You know what else lives in my head? When I was a kid our neighbor's dog attacked a rabbit; didn't kill it but injured it badly. Until that day I had no idea that rabbits could make noise at all, let alone the horrible shrieking noise that this rabbit made. It was terrifying when it happened and it still gives me chills to this day if I see a wounded animal. You, dying rabbits, other similar things, that's what's living in my head; you are the only one gracious enough to redecorate, though, so thank you.
And don't bother asking the dying rabbit any questions; he won't answer them, either so there's another thing you two have in common.
Now you are talking about rabbits. In the Sports Talk forum.
Am I stomping around too much? Is the music too loud?
you know,
where I am currently living. In your head...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
for me personally, the most redeeming aspect of this legendary thread isn't a dead horse that's being bludgeoned to the point of disintegrating, it's showstopper wandering into the line of fire like he's drunk and doesn't know where he is, exiting, then wobbling back in time and again
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Yes, rabbits. I thought maybe you knew what those were so you'd understand what I was talking about. I see I was too optimistic. They are small, fuzzy animals who hop around and don't bother anyone. My point in using them was that they are capable of emitting sounds that would make you lose your mind and pray to God Almighty to make it stop. My neighbor made it stop by putting a bullet in the poor rabbit's head. I don't think my old neighbor can be of any help this time, though.
And no, I'm fine with you living in my head. If you're stomping or playing music I can't hear it. It's only the shrieking of the rabbits that bothers me, and I am only reminded of that when you post here. What you're doing in my head doesn't concern me; it's what you're doing here that calls to mind the dying wail of a half-skinned rabbit. Oh, and while you're in there, in addition to decorating, there's a whole lot of information about the uses of statistics, and logic, particularly avoiding logical fallacies. You can help yourself to any of it. No charge. And if you do go through enough of it, you'll figure out that Adrian Beltre and Roger Clemens were epic cheaters, and the rabbits will be at peace.
This might have been discussed before, but I am bringing it up because I have seen recent, unexpected breakthroughs in our collective abilities to both reason through and articulate arguments. It may be a question worth revisiting here or in another thread.
Is Tom Brady the GOAT?
...greatest quarterback of all time, that is ...
What sparked my idea for this comment is what @dallasactuary said about logical fallacies in the recent comment above.
I have to add, a fallacy can be approached from many angles, and logic is subjective.
I don't know if he is or not, but I warn everyone not to make a truth statement one way or the other. Craig44 and the rest of the ministry of truth are watching.....
Epic thread, but it's missing one key piece.
bwwaaahahahahhha. rabbits.
back to the topic. your methodology is so bad. you just dont see it. or refuse to see it. I cant tell which
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
people are welcome to make truth statements.
about things that are true...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.