Stat-friendly and stat-unfriendly baseball writers

[Songbird]

Mostly, tart.

I won't have people believe what you wrote in the second graf.

What I said is that I wonder if the true seamhead can ever turn off the SABR -- to enjoy the movie for the movie, as you put it -- or is the calculating baseball brain always calculating baseball?

 

[Songbird]

well, tart *did* have a post there a few minutes ago ...

 

[dreunc1542]

I'm as big of a stat lover as there is

Given everything else in that post, do you believe your own line?

That line tripped me up as well. Xan, you make more arguments with your gut, and against statistics, than just about anyone I can think of. I don't mean that in a disparaging way at all, but more as a plain fact. You love arguing your gut thoughts, which often go against what statistical analysis says.

 

[waterytart]

Sorry. I decided it's a subject I'm not competent enough in to make pronouncements.

I obviously don't understand sj ground rules. ;D

 

[Songbird]

What you wrote, dre, has nothing to do with what I posted about wondering about SABR freaks.

Here's what waterytart wrote before deleting it:

Going apples and kumquats here, but what xan might be getting at:

I had the good fortune to spend some post-graduate time at NYU studying film. These days, when I go to the movies, I'm usually watching the script and the acting, like everybody else. If I choose to, I can watch/listen to shot set-ups, editing, sound editing, etc. But I can't do that and watch story/acting the first time I see something.

I'm guessing xan and lots of other folks believe you have to choose between watching the game and calculating the game. One answer to that is registering that the hitter got two more RBIs doesn't intrude on anybody's ability to watch the game. If you're as comfortable with advanced stats as old-school ones, why shouldn't the same dynamic apply?

So no, I won't have people believe what she wrote in the second graf.

What I said is that I wonder if the true seamhead can ever turn off the SABR -- to enjoy the movie for the movie, as tart put it -- or is the calculating baseball brain always calculating baseball?

That has zero to do with your assertion I argue my gut (which is pretty large these days) over statistics.

I rarely do that. In the Other Outstanding Place I did indeed post with great conviction that I thought this felt like 2000 again and had a feeling Romney might win. But I was wrong because I did not think Obama's ground army was as devastating as it was. But that's neither here nor there. Let's not use one example as me being someone who gut-argues more than anyone you know.

If a stat says something, I go with the stat 98 percent of the time.

 

[dreunc1542]

There are other examples as well, Xan. There are many of them. One I can remember is you argued for some journeyman big man as being better than Bosh and it was completely because of your gut. I can't even remember the guy's name, but you argued quite vigorously for it. If I cared to think on it, more, I could think of others (Roy Halladay way back when comes to mind). I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely the case.

 

[Songbird]

I remember the Bosh thing but I don't remember the player I argued. I'd like to know who it was so I can say that I'd still take that player or say I was wrong on him.

I never argued that Halladay wouldn't dominate the NL but I thought it would take at least one season to get his bearings. There were reports like this http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/the-statistical-impact-of-switching-leagues-for-pitchers/ but my big thing was that he'd have to hit on a regular basis and that it could have an effect on his pitching. I was wrong, obviously.

The other thing is gut and opinion aren't the same. I didn't have a gut feeling Halladay would struggle his first year in the NL. As I said, there were factors I based my opinion on.

But I've been right about everything else I've ever said, except for when I've been wrong.

 

[Versatile]

Songbird, I enjoy your posts. But they come from the gut, always. You said this was the worst Southern Cal team in 30 years. You said Florida would make the title game.

I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked.

 

[Songbird]

I said a sequence of events could lead to Florida making the title game. And the statistical possibilities weren't a stretch -- other than Auburn would have had to beat Alabama. But hell, Texas A&M went up 20-0 at Alabama so anything was possible. Washington beat Stanford. Weird **** happened this season.

This is the worst USC team I've ever watched. I don't care if they're 7-5 because it goes so much farther than the record or stats that suggest its better than any of Hackett's teams or whatnot. It's awful from the head coach to the awful discipline to the softest of underbellies I've ever seen from a Trojans team. So that's what I'm really saying when I say it's the worst team in 30 years.

Come on, boys, keep throwin' 'em my way. My PAPiP (Post Average for Posts in Play) is rising furiously tonight!

 

[Songbird]

And yeah, I embiggened the greatness of Devean George!

I was wrong about Devean George

 

[dreunc1542]

You just said: "it goes so much farther than the record or stats" - that means you're going completely with your gut. Worst team means worst team, and they weren't. Also, saying something will happen based on the possibility of weird **** happening is not the work of someone relying on quality statistical data. Your making sense average is falling quite precipitously.

 

[JC]

Vlade Divac is better than Kevin Garnett.

 

[Songbird]

No, I spelled out how a 1-loss Florida could make it to the title game over 2-loss Alabama and 2-loss Georgia. It's not like it was a 1 in a million longshot. I wasn't gutting out a Florida title game because I hate Florida.

And the first part of your response is exactly the problem with this discussion when it comes to your stats-gut perception.

USC scored 50-something on Oregon. Really? They gave up 60-something. Did you see who led America in penalties this season? That would be USC (and so many of them were of the sheer stupidity variety). Remember the sequence of plays Kiffin called on the goal line series against Notre Dame?

*That* is my statistical data every bit as much as the stats you hang onto (PPG, record, whatever) would suggest that it's not the worst USC team in 30 years. Because in the grand scheme of things, it's the same thing. That isn't my gut saying USC sucks. No, it's evidence saying USC sucked. Just not the evidence you think is legitimate.

Posted after JC: I'll still take Vlade. I'll never be wrong about that. You could have put (same age) Vlade onto that '08 team and the C's win the title.

 

[dreunc1542]

I'm going to stop belaboring the point as your own posts stand up as solid arguments against your premise.

 

[JC]

Garnett's defense was the key to that title. Divac can't spell defense. There is absolutely nothing Divac does better than Garnett. It is a ridiculous statement. Anyways we've gone through this before, no need rehashing it all

 

[Songbird]

I'm going to stop belaboring the point as your own posts stand up as solid arguments against your premise.

No, you're unwilling to see anything other than A-B-C. Is 7-5 worse than 4-8. No. Does that make you happy?

Great, record-wise 2012 USC was not the worst USC team in 30 years.

I'll also suggest you didn't watch more than 10 minutes of a USC game this season.

 

[dreunc1542]

You would be wrong. But again, this is your eyes and your gut leading your argument - as usual. You can say you're a guy a big-time stat guy until your keyboard runs red, but it won't be the case.

 

[dooley_womack1]

How about putting your board membership at stake, needing Hawaii to beat Georgia in a BCS game in order not to take a six-month board vacation?

 

[LongTimeListener]

WTF is this thread about?

 

[Songbird]

Says the guy (dre) who adamantly told me that I was wrong for saying UNC didn't rally from 27 down to 6 against Butler, only I told you it happened because I watched it happen, yet you still didn't believe me until I showed you the story -- only then you said you just didn't remember it happening.

The point being, I could write ABCD and you'd find a reason to say I wrote ABDC.

USC was lucky even to be 7-5 because 3 of those wins (Syracuse, Utah, Washington) weren't really secured till late -- and 4-8 was just around the corner. But that's just my gut speaking.

dooley: I had fun with that, but I factored in a few things to pick Hawaii: 1) 12-0 with Colt Brennan leading a high-scoring offense 2) It's Georgia we were talking about -- hadn't won **** since '80 and 3) It was the era when Boise was beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl and Utah was beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. There was some real legitimacy in western and mountain football those years.

LTL: It's about stats and guts and Vlade.