#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
They're not flawed, they're almost totally unreliable.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
They're a work in progress. Anything is an improvement over errors/fielding percentage.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paulie's attributes on the field and in the dugout outweigh his faults....by a lot.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not necessarily. At least with errors and fielding percentage, fans know they don't attempt to tell you much. If they don't, they are corrected with little debate. The idea that statisticians are contriving stats so they can quantify the unquantifiable, and that some people will defend them is not an improvement.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Last edited by SI1020; 11-18-2012 at 06:37 PM. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well first, that's the definition of a pointless stat, but second, no, there are people who bring up errors and fielding percentage when discussing defense... Unfortunately, those are not universally derided stats.
__________________
#9 2015 Obligatory Attendance/Record Tracker 1-2 LAST GAME: May 22 - Sox 3, Twins 2 NEXT GAME: June 8 - Sox vs. Astros |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No different than folks who completely disregard them without a second thought in some dim witted notion of preserving the purity of the game
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I am more skeptical about newer fielding stats than I am about fielding percentage because fielding percentage is something I can see when I'm watching the game. I can see its limitations. If you want to argue that Paul Konerko cost the White Sox x-number of games in a season, you don't take some contrived formulas that are not organic to the game and do the math. You find specific examples of games that were lost by his defense and balance them against games that were won by his defense. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But it is much more meaningful.
The Winston Smith analogy was appropriate. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not really. Players' defense contributes to the outcomes of games in ways other than errors at "critical points" of the game.
Quote:
PS: "revisionism" is a valid and valuable contribution to history as a discipline. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually, I could use a little less of his Eeyore routine. Can't see how that possibly helps anyone in the dugout.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have spent more time on saber stats than most devotees I'd venture to say, beginning with Total Baseball, a couple of decades ago. I'm not a Luddite who curses technology or the changes of life just for the hell of it. I'm alive today because of a one medical procedure that wasn't available until several decades ago, that allowed a highly technical surgery still being perfected to this day. I don't know what else I can say. Perhaps some day I'll meet a saber devotee and we can go over the history, the formulas used and have a civilized argument. I've tried here and for the most part failed. I am now just about totally out of love with saber.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|