"If the stat is not on the back of a baseball card, no need to use it..."

Skinpinch

I have heard those words uttered in one form or another...usually by fans who refuse to accept better measurment tools. They may refuse to out of habit, because they are brainwashed(it has always been this way), or they don't fully understand them. They feel since it has been good enough for this many years, it still is.

Regardless of the reason, it makes no sense to avoid more accurate measurement tools, in favor of arcahic ones.

Back to the quote on hand. My response to fans who adhere to such old fashioned philosophies was something like this..."The stats you are accustomed to seeing weren't always the ones that were used. If wanting it to be the way it always had been, then one should only use PO, A, E, and Runs, as those were the primary box score type stats." Now my response isn't quite the same as the back of a baseball card...but baseball cards didn't have stats on them in 1887...so I guess the way it always had been was no stats .

But forget all that! I just bought a 2007 Topps series one set for a gift for a young one, and when I looked on the back of the card, low and behold I see the stat of OPS!!!! The, "if it ain't on the back of a baseball card" argument doesn't even hold water at all now . I don't have to give a long winded response in logic, I can just simply say...."There it is!"

This is my first modern buy in a while, so forgive me if it was on any other sets, and it is still only OPS, not OPS+, or any of the better ones, but it is a first step out of the stone age.


By the way, I love the set! Nice combo players, awards etc... I just wish they hadn't put those four square dots on the front. It would have looked nice and clean without them.

stown

It's how one looks at a game.

Some are completely stat based, others go by what they see and other intangibles stats don't reflect.

For example, when Jeter smashed his face:



You cannot put a numerical value on that.

On the other hand, some see a little bit of both.

Everyone has their opinions and preferences on how to view sports. Take consideration of other's perspectives and move on.

I'm not saying nor intending to imply that your theories/opinions are wrong.

grote15

Well put stown. The game of baseball is most certainly based on statistics, but I also believe there are elements to the game that just aren't as easily quantified.

Morgoth

If statistics were all that mattered then the team with the best statiticians would win more often then not. Money and humanity overrule alot of what you can do with stats.

Skinpinch

Morgoth, what goes into building a winning team is finding the best players. The people who are in charge of that have a great influence, alll the way from the bird dog scouts up to the GM. Then obviously the teams with the most money have the advantage. That is a different topic.

Stown, if a person wants to judge baseball players on how their personality is, or their grit, that is fine...but once that person steps across and starts using objective measurements, then it makes no sense to use ones that aren't accurate. That is the point.

I try not to bother people who strictly judge players based on who they like to watch, or if they like them because the player used to dig graves in the offseason...that stuff is fine. But once that person tries to discount a great objective statistical measurement WITH A FAULTY STATISTICAL METHOD, then they are no longer looking at it in terms of Jeter smashing his face. They too have tried to use an objective valuation, only it is one that isn't as accurate. THen they resort to the "statistics don't matter", yet they use statistics themselves.

Also, whenever somebody uses the "Jeter is leader" garbage, they ALWAYS discount the other people's points and opinions on oppositive views of perception on him. In that case, if everyboyd has an opinion, then they are both right, which means they are both wrong.

THere is no wrong in how many runs Jeter is responsible for. There is no wrong just how often a contact out moves up a runner. There is no wrong on the average worht of a HR, etc..

Baseball is PERFECT for using objective measures, PERFECT.


As for what goes into winning, well Morgoth, there is a lot of luck and randomness that goes into winning, and that is what confuses people and lends them their 'evidence' to fit their perceptions.

perkdog

<< <i>As for what goes into winning, well Morgoth, there is a lot of luck and randomness that goes into winning, and that is what confuses people and lends them their 'evidence' to fit their perceptions. >>




Agreed