From: McDuck on 23 Apr 2010 00:09
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Wayback1918
>On Apr 22, 4:55�pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 10:58�pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Look at whatever stats you want and you will find that JD Drew has,
>> > until this year, been a v. productive hitter and an above average
>> > fielder for the RS.
>> I'm convinced.
>> > And he had a GS today.
>> You should know better than to play that sample in a discussion about
>> As I like to say, the exception proves the rule. It is the absence of
>> production when it is needed most that makes JD Drew a statistically
>> above average player (who is slightly below average when it matters).
>> Average is not that high a bar; this is the Red Sox, not the majority
>> of perpetual non-contenders.
>> Statistics are easily abused. �They are a useful tool, but only if
>> paired with astute observation. �It's a mistake when someone like Bill
>> James treats the game as a statistical exercise--taking into account
>> only the things they have tried to quantify, and failing to comprehend
>> all of the things they have yet to quantify. It's arrogant, hubris.
>> That type of thinking brings us players like Drew in the first place.
>> What makes Pedroia a more valuable player than JD? �OBP? �OPS+? �There
>> isn't one metric which can quantify it. Of those two, who is more
>> likely to battle deep into the count against a dominant pitcher that
>> has been pounding the zone--and which one is likely to flail weakly at
>> an outside slider everyone sees coming before he steps into the box?
>Drew was 12th in the league in OPS+ much higher than league average.
>But why would anyone just use one stat?
>Your assertion that Drew is below average when it counts is
>laughable. I hope you try to make that case.....Make my day!
>You must not have read anything by Bill James. If you had you would
>know that he had a deep love of the game as its played on the field as
>Actually Ortiz is leading the team right now Pitches/PA
>There is so much more you are wrong about (and it was only a few
>sentences).....a below average post.....and the bar is set pretty low
Thanks for the P/PA numbers. I see Drew and Pedroia are pretty close.
where are these numbers avaialble? My guess is that Drew is more ahead
in prior years.
From: McDuck on 23 Apr 2010 00:18
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
>On Apr 22, 4:56�pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>> Actually Ortiz is leading the team right now Pitches/PA
>> Ortiz � � � 4.89
>> Drew � � � 4.21
>> Pedroia � 4.17
>> Youkilis � 4.16
>> There is so much more you are wrong about (and it was only a few
>> sentences).....a below average post.....and the bar is set pretty low
>Lol. You missed the part about low standard deviation, sample size,
>the whole "quasi-stat-head" ball of wax, didn't you? Never mind the
>entire argument about what stats can't tell you. That's what's
>amusing to me. (That's why I come here.)
Do you know anything about stats other than random terms? I'm not
meaning to be nasty --- just asking. You probably do not actually mean
"sample size" b/c in all the cases we have addresssed, we are using
the entire data set, not a sample of that set. Of course, it is v.
common in this ng and elsewhere to use the term "sample size" when the
"sample" is 100% of the data set, so we all know what you nean by that
usage. Better terminology, however, is to say "small data set".
In the case of pitches/PA, the data set is rather large, or certainly
could be. And the range is pretty wide.
I know what a standard deviation is, but I do not see its relevance to
any point you were trying to make. What do you see as its relevance in
Opinions should be based on information, and statistics is a way of
organizing information. Of course, we are untitled to unfounded
opinions, old wives tales, etc. But it is difficult to have a useful
discussion of baseball without reference to information b/c it is
difficult to get others to buy into someone's opinions when the
opinions are unsupported.
From: NK on 23 Apr 2010 00:28
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
>As I like to say, the exception proves the rule.
And that's a classic example of the "logic" you use. The fact is
that an exception shows that the rule is *wrong*.