A good new book to buy on analyzing baseball...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
There is a new book that is a must for any baseball fan. It simply delves into everything, dispells common misconception, and does it in a very straightforward way. The book is called...
THE BOOK, playing the percentages in baseball
I recommend this book, even though I never read it, but I have faith that it will shed new light on the way baseball is commonly looked at.
THE BOOK, playing the percentages in baseball
I recommend this book, even though I never read it, but I have faith that it will shed new light on the way baseball is commonly looked at.
0
Comments
Actually, it takes away the bias, not adds to it. You are a poster who proclaimed in another post that lives and dies with the glory of his teams. Beside that being a sad statement on ones emotional confidence, it is the exact bias that should be avoided
If all you want is to just enjoy the outcome of the game, just let them win or lose, that is fine...but stick to conversations that include that, because your comments are so off based and unfounded that it is like debating the ancient greeks that some guy named Atlas really doesn't hold up the earth.
Objective analysis of what actually happened is the key, not emotional proclamations...like the following...
I proclaim Bo Jackson is better than Ted Williams, and I would like to hear you refute my arguments and claim otherwise. Jackson had a better arm, DID NOT CHOKE IN THE World Series like T. WIlliams, Jackson ran better, played better defense, and hit the ball futher. He also hit a cluthc home run to clinch a division.
I porclaim that Rick Dempsey is better than Mike Piazza. Dempsey was vastly superior defensively, and he was clutch in the '83 playoffs. Piazza never came through like that.
I proclaim that BARRY SANDERS is a poor running back, he NEVER won the big won, NEVER was the deciding factor in a playoff game, was not clutch enough nor had the mental toughness to be a goal line back, and he was ALWAYS being tackled in the backfield.
I PROCLAIM THAT JOHNNY DAMON WAS BETTER THAN TY COBB! YES, he was the lead off catalyst that sparked the greatest comeback in playoff history by coming down 3 games to 1 and beating the hated Yankees! Then he lead his team to victory in the World Series! The lead off man and pulse of the team! Ty Cobb could never do that as he always choked in the World Series. Ty Cobb had three chances to win a World Series and he could NEVER pull it off.
Hardcore, before you say anything, I want you to refute my four claims. If you cannot reply to the four claims and dispute, or agree with them, then it is not worth continuing a conversation with you.
I'm curious to see if you agree with my four claims, or disagree(if so, then how).
<< <i>I proclaim Bo Jackson is better than Ted Williams, and I would like to hear you refute my arguments and claim otherwise. Jackson had a better arm, DID NOT CHOKE IN THE World Series like T. WIlliams, Jackson ran better, played better defense, and hit the ball futher. He also hit a cluthc home run to clinch a division. >>
Uh, what World Series did Bo Jackson play in? He only appeared in one postseason when he played with the ChiSox. BTW - he went 0 for 10 source
Also, still waiting for you to conclude this thread.
<< <i>
I proclaim Bo Jackson is better than Ted Williams, and I would like to hear you refute my arguments and claim otherwise. Jackson had a better arm, DID NOT CHOKE IN THE World Series like T. WIlliams, Jackson ran better, played better defense, and hit the ball futher. He also hit a cluthc home run to clinch a division. >>
Skinpinch,
You certainly like to type a lot of gibberish. Aside from the last idiotic post that you made, this is the dumbest thing that I have ever read. I don't know where you come up with your offbeat theories, but you are not coming off as a knowledgeable fan at all.
Koby
Stown, that post season post I forgot about. Again though, I thougt it was obvious. Only a moron would take the team of lesser players, yet that was posted to show that post season totals don't give an ounce of conclusion on a players' ability, clutch or overall. It shows the nonsense of what people typically say about 'post season players'.
I will fill you in on the mystery players later, my food is burning!
As for the women? Man, I am typing this stuff to get away from the woman for pete's sake!
P.S. Koby, if you are referring to the pyschic Jack Morris thread, then again, I thought it was obvioius. If you read that deeply, and then contrast it to the previous debate about his mythical abilities, you should see that. The dude must have been psychic, because he pitched bad in many clutch times, so he must have known that his team still would have won, otherwise he would have pitched clutch more often(like the clutch player everyone says he was).
As for the research? Dude, I know where to look right away for all the stuff I type.
<< <i>Actually, it seperates fantasy from reality.
Actually, it takes away the bias, not adds to it. You are a poster who proclaimed in another post that lives and dies with the glory of his teams. Beside that being a sad statement on ones emotional confidence, it is the exact bias that should be avoided
If all you want is to just enjoy the outcome of the game, just let them win or lose, that is fine...but stick to conversations that include that, because your comments are so off based and unfounded that it is like debating the ancient greeks that some guy named Atlas really doesn't hold up the earth.
Objective analysis of what actually happened is the key, not emotional proclamations...like the following...
I proclaim Bo Jackson is better than Ted Williams, and I would like to hear you refute my arguments and claim otherwise. Jackson had a better arm, DID NOT CHOKE IN THE World Series like T. WIlliams, Jackson ran better, played better defense, and hit the ball futher. He also hit a cluthc home run to clinch a division.
I porclaim that Rick Dempsey is better than Mike Piazza. Dempsey was vastly superior defensively, and he was clutch in the '83 playoffs. Piazza never came through like that.
I proclaim that BARRY SANDERS is a poor running back, he NEVER won the big won, NEVER was the deciding factor in a playoff game, was not clutch enough nor had the mental toughness to be a goal line back, and he was ALWAYS being tackled in the backfield.
I PROCLAIM THAT JOHNNY DAMON WAS BETTER THAN TY COBB! YES, he was the lead off catalyst that sparked the greatest comeback in playoff history by coming down 3 games to 1 and beating the hated Yankees! Then he lead his team to victory in the World Series! The lead off man and pulse of the team! Ty Cobb could never do that as he always choked in the World Series. Ty Cobb had three chances to win a World Series and he could NEVER pull it off.
Hardcore, before you say anything, I want you to refute my four claims. If you cannot reply to the four claims and dispute, or agree with them, then it is not worth continuing a conversation with you. >>
As if Barry Sanders ever had a surrounding team to help him to the playoffs more than a couple times. If Emitt Smith had Sander's O-line, he would have been out of football as quickly as Christain Okoye! Sure, Sanders was busted behind the line of scrimmage for a loss on many occasions, but he also broke many runs for 50+, but I suppose EVERY other runner runs for positive yardage on EVERY play, except for Sanders. Bo Jackson, wow, I never once said he was a crappy player, but would the comparison of Bo and Ted be against the "era" thing that I hear about not being able to compare them? Ted missed years in his prime to go fight wars, Bo got injured, a good test of an athlete is the ability to not be injured, regardless of what sport said athlete plays. Johnny Damon lead his team to a World Series win, ok, great, so Manny, Ortiz, and everyone else on that team sucks! BTW, I think, and have always thought, Mike Piazza is somewhat overrated, he is a good player, but much of his fame comes from his days as a player, somewhere in a NY area. What is next, are you going to compare Jim Walewander to Chet Lemon, and tell me that Jim was better, he was a Yankee for 9 games? But who am I, huh, I am just a stupid Midwesterner from the Detroit area, who never saw a championship team or great players play, I guess every championship win a Detroit team has ever had, has been a fluke! And I bet, what you say goes, and what I say goes to the garbage, because your education is much better, am I correct?
"As if Barry Sanders ever had a surrounding team to help him to the playoffs more than a couple times. If Emitt Smith had Sander's O-line, he would have been out of football as quickly as Christain Okoye! Sure, Sanders was busted behind the line of scrimmage for a loss on many occasions, but he also broke many runs for 50+, but I suppose EVERY other runner runs for positive yardage on EVERY play, except for Sanders. Bo Jackson, wow, I never once said he was a crappy player, but would the comparison of Bo and Ted be against the "era" thing that I hear about not being able to compare them? Ted missed years in his prime to go fight wars, Bo got injured, a good test of an athlete is the ability to not be injured, regardless of what sport said athlete plays. Johnny Damon lead his team to a World Series win, ok, great, so Manny, Ortiz, and everyone else on that team sucks"
Hardcore, on one hand you singlehandidly credit Jack Morris with three rings, totally disregard the effect his teammates had on those rings AND HAD ON HIS WIN TOTALS!! Now all of a sudden when defending your other hero Barry Sanders you suddenly remember that the teammates play a huge factor in whether or not he gets to the promised land(or has success). You cannot have it both ways! Either Morris is a Hall of Fame God because 'he' has three rings(and a few good post season starts), OR Sanders is not worthy of the Hall because 'he' has zero rings and did garbage in the playoffs."
Sanders did NOT have Emmitt's offensive line, just like Dave Stieb DID NOT have Jack Morris's run support! You recognize this fact when defending Sanders, but ignore it when highlighting Morris, and that my friend is the hypocrisy that simply runs rampant in bias sports fans. Either you recognize that Morris's team had a big hand in his win totals, or you must agree that Barry Sanders was a choker and got tackled in the backfield often because he wasn't as good as the numbers you seem to despise. It simply cannot be both ways my friend. You are painted in a corner, just as I figured you would be.
This is why objective analysis is needed, not some raving fanatic who lives and dies with 'his' teams.
P.S. I am a midwesterner too. And I said that about Ted, as that is about as off the wall as stuff you seem to come up with.
You have a different level of following sports, and that is great for you and anybody who chooses to. I go into that mode myself quite often(as in the grand scheme of life what the hell does it really matter how much run support Morris got). Sometimes just sit back and enjoy a good performance. I totally understand where you are coming from.
I delved much deeper into the analyzing of sports, especially baseball, and lucky for me I parlayed that into at least some tangible gains for my family.
I agree with the overanalyzing, especially on the NFL ESPN shows, good gosh.
As for Jack Morris, I will tell you the same thing I tell my friend who is a buckner fan. You remember him as you do, so what does it reallly matter if some fat sports writer does not?
If fantasy sports makes you money, if you do well at it, fine, then do it, but if the way I look at sports is different from your way, does not make my way wrong. I make my money in other ways, but as I type here, I do not have to have ESPN on the television to see the latest hit by a certain player. I love sports as much as the next fan, love the card and memoribilia hobby as much as the next collector, but sports gives you highs and lows, thats why we watch them. You win, you lose, you tie, you are happy one second, upset the next, but these so called experts just overanalyze everything, and it bores me as much as religious holidays! Hell, you see on these boards, how everyone calls me a Yankee hater, and I do not hate the Yankees as much as people think, if you notice, I say I hate how many people, networks, and such, think that is the ONLY team in pro sports. But, since I am called a hater, I will play that role, because if there is any evidence to it at all, I love to be hated, I have enough trusted friends to suit me fine!
<< <i>Exactly, some sportswriters do stop players from Hall of Fame entries! Buckner is at the top of the list, as a player who put up deserving numbers to be in, but ONE play, ONE night, in ONE game really is the reason why he is held out. And, I am a nut, I like to have fun, getting drunk is something I enjoy, but I do not drive while drinking, nor do I miss work because of my drinking, being a social weekend binge drinker is what cemented friendships I have since high school!
If fantasy sports makes you money, if you do well at it, fine, then do it, but if the way I look at sports is different from your way, does not make my way wrong. I make my money in other ways, but as I type here, I do not have to have ESPN on the television to see the latest hit by a certain player. I love sports as much as the next fan, love the card and memoribilia hobby as much as the next collector, but sports gives you highs and lows, thats why we watch them. You win, you lose, you tie, you are happy one second, upset the next, but these so called experts just overanalyze everything, and it bores me as much as religious holidays! Hell, you see on these boards, how everyone calls me a Yankee hater, and I do not hate the Yankees as much as people think, if you notice, I say I hate how many people, networks, and such, think that is the ONLY team in pro sports. But, since I am called a hater, I will play that role, because if there is any evidence to it at all, I love to be hated, I have enough trusted friends to suit me fine! >>
It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does make your analysis incomplete and irrelevant. The point being made here is simple: Either players careers are defined by their post season play or they're not. If you say that Jack Morris is a HOFer because of his post season play, then you have to say that Barry Sanders is NOT a HOFer for the same reason.
This isn't a subtle or complicated point. If you still don't understand what's being said think about it a while and post again in this thread when this point finally makes sense to you.
<< <i>It doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does make your analysis incomplete and irrelevant. The point being made here is simple: Either players careers are defined by their post season play or they're not. If you say that Jack Morris is a HOFer because of his post season play, then you have to say that Barry Sanders is NOT a HOFer for the same reason.
This isn't a subtle or complicated point. If you still don't understand what's being said think about it a while and post again in this thread when this point finally makes sense to you. >>
I never said Jack Morris is a HOFer only because of his post season play. His career in a whole, makes him deserving, read a little to what I have said, I only said, if it is a big game, I would take Jack Morris any day. Pedro is said to be a definite first ballot HOFer, and I do not necessarily denounce that, but he only pitched on one winning team. The ONLY thing I see said about Jack Morris not being in, is because of an ERA, because it may have been a little high, or what support he had from his team! Think hypothetically, let's say Roger Clemens had 10 runs of support every game, would we be arguing that he is not deserving to be in the Hall? If post season is the ONLY equation to HOF credentials, then right now, I would be arguing that Kirk Gibson should have been a first ballot entry also, he did hit two big home runs that stick out in my mind! Thing is, numbers are construed one way or the other, to make one player a logical choice, compared to another who is "not deserving." I think it is wrong, but I do not have any say in the voting, but then again, I do not know what I am talking about, correct?
<< <i>Stown, that post season post I forgot about. Again though, I thougt it was obvious. Only a moron would take the team of lesser players, yet that was posted to show that post season totals don't give an ounce of conclusion on a players' ability, clutch or overall. It shows the nonsense of what people typically say about 'post season players'. >>
Right... You put together all of those stats for nothing and just so happened to miss the ttts even though you responded to and created other threads.
What the kind of conclusion were you looking for on the thread? I posed a question. Are you looking for the mysery players?
The thread was written to show that post season numbers don't show anything, as it is more a random sampling of games than of anything else, hence the absolute best in the game looking very bad, and some run of the mill players looking like Gods.
The mystery players are players who are/were considered as post season Gods, seemingly having a mythical ability to 'rise to the occasion' simply because it is the post season. Yet, if they did have such an ability, then they should have been able to ride to the occasion consistently, and in the situatiosn where it was even more clutch.
The player with the eleven crappy post seasons was Reggie. Yes, a guy who is considered clutch certainly didn't show it in a bunch of other series.
The player with the poor numbers with men on base in the post season was Derek Jeter. Yes, if he was considered clutch, then why would he be poor with men on base in the post season? Isn't that even more clutch, the ultimate clutch? Is not men on base in the post season the true measure of clutchness? Then why did Jeter do poorly there if he is considered clutch?
The answer is that there isnt' enough post season games for the things to even out like the eventually do. The more post season games, the closer it gets to the players true ability. This ability is already known based on the thousands of regular season examples. Post season numbers don't tell us anything of value that we already know based on the valid examples already exhibited.
Is that the conclusion I was suppose to give?
I didnt' spend a whole lot of time putting those teams together, I've already looked at that topic before, so it is nothing new to me.