From: McDuck on
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Wayback1918
<wayback1918(a)> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 4:55�pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 10:58�pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)> 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
>> stats.
>> 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
>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

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
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
<yank_ees_suck(a)> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 4:56�pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)> 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
>> here.
>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
this discussion?

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
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
<yank_ees_suck(a)> wrote:

>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*.