There's the arrogance. Don't you think that "old guy" was once young and thought he had all the answers too?

There is much argument to be had regarding the value of certain aspects of the game. A statistic like WAR assigns a fixed value to various components. Whether those values are proper or not is an open question. That becomes obvious when changes are made to these more complicated statistics to "improve" them. If an "improved" statistic in three years shows that the true MVP was Gordon Beckham, should the award be reassigned?

The problem is your are seeking one model to answer everything. There isn't and never will be. Sports, are way too complex to boil down to a number. The stock market struggles to have accurate statistical models, and that is something that basically starts out as math.
Well, I think Trout was more deserving. That's not the point though. You don't need to see every game. I don't watch every Heat game, but I know Lebron is the MVP*.

Are you saying there is no case for Cabrera to win? That's where you are wrong. Both guys were deserving.

*-regular season.
You only need a certain sample size to judge something. I haven't studied every housing market in the country, but I can make an educated opinion on what it did, and what it will do. That's one of the issues with the SABR crew. They think more data correlates with more accuracy. While it certainly can be true, it's not always.
The "other method" is to take everything into account and use your brain. Just like most things in life, there is no easy answer. Both guys were deserving. SABR says only one guy was deserving. I think that shows a flaw. Both guys are clearly MVP worthy.

Let's say that Nate Silver created a statistical model that decided where you should work, what town you should live in, and who you should marry. Would you blindly accept the findings or would you still make your own decision? Would your decision be "wrong" if you didn't go to Omaha, work for a beef company, and marry whoever the model said? Why not? I believe the answer is that you don't trust the model to be infallible.

That's one of the issues with the SABR crew. They think more data correlates with more accuracy. While it certainly can be true, it's not always.

I'm being totally honest when I say my generation will have a much better grip on God, gay marriage, pot and advanced stats. It is a generational thing. Call it arrogance, or whatever it is, but we'll figure it out.

And I'll go ahead and predict that the NEXT generation will be further advanced than mine. That's how the world works. In general, we move forward and get better.

That's not how the world works. Your generation is poisoning the planet. Congratulations.

And I've never said Miggy isn't deserving. He had the best offensive year, and I understand people want the MVP to be the best hitter. So I get why he won. Personally, I don't think the MVP is a hitting award, that's the silver slugger.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

This speaks to my view of the game- and for most of us it is just a game. (Obviously, those with big money invested may have a different viewpoint.) But I get the impression that many people like to use "advanced" statistics more as a way to feel superior to others than as a way to actually shed light on the subject. It really isn't that complicated. I see Trout's homers, runs scored, runs batted in, watch him play defense and run the bases, I know he's a good fuckin' player. I don't really need to parse it down any further. And assigning a specific number of wins to a single player in such a complicated system is just claptrap.

Is that what your parent's generation told you?

No, that's what history tells us. Are the Romans "moving forward and getting better?"

I'm not seeking a model that predicts everything. I'm using the one that I trust most, that is generally agreed upon to have value. And I'm using that, because I have yet to see any other option. And again, when you say he is "using his brain" he is creating his own WAR. He's just doing it in his head, which has no value to anyone else.

And I've never said Miggy isn't deserving. He had the best offensive year, and I understand people want the MVP to be the best hitter. So I get why he won. Personally, I don't think the MVP is a hitting award, that's the silver slugger.

Forget the specific number. It could be a letter! The specific number isn't what matters, it's the comparative value. As Rick said, what YOU are doing is in your head. But you are also assigning value to each category to know that Trout is a "good fuckin' player." That's how your brain works! It analyzes data. That's all WAR is. It's doing the exact same thing your brain is.

Anyway, if you had to predict, do you see advanced stats becoming more prevalent or less prevalent?

You are lacking self awareness. You are literally upset that the guy with the higher WAR didn't win. I think you need to understand what computers are good at and what they aren't good at. Computers are great at managing huge pieces of information but they are horrendous at making conclusions about that data. That's why people like me have jobs. To put it in your terms, SIRI can tell me what the score of the Bears game was quite easily, but SIRI would struggle greatly to answer whether Jay Cutler has played well this year.

You are falling for one of the major fallacies of all statistical models. It's the idea that the best model is right simply because it's the best one we have now. "Show me a better model" is not proof that your model is good. Weather forecasting more than 14 days out is a good example of this. Models can predict what will happen one month from now, but they are universally considered useless. That's an extreme example, as I do think that WAR has some merit, but it's not the golden answer either.
Why are you so upset about it then? You seem offended that baseball people chose Miggy. If he was deserving, then why so mad?

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

Forget the specific number. It could be a letter! The specific number isn't what matters, it's the comparative value. As Rick said, what YOU are doing is in your head. But you are also assigning value to each category to know that Trout is a "good fuckin' player." That's how your brain works! It analyzes data. That's all WAR is. It's doing the exact same thing your brain is.

I've already told you I don't need WAR to believe Trout won. You so over exaggerating it is silly. I also don't think WAR is "right." Of course it isn't right... it's not a fact. It's a tool, nothing more nothing less. But to me it is the best tool available.

And I'm not mad. And I'm not offended. I just think people are wrong.

But to your point, if JORR says he thinks it will be sunny in 14 days and the radar says otherwise, who am I going to believe? Both could be 100% incorrect. But I'm going to put more stock in what the predictive models think. This was the same case as Silver. I can have a feeling Silver's model was better than Ham Rove saying he thinks Romney will win in a landslide because the exit polls are wrong. Rove could hav been right, but I'll side with Silver and Silver will be right more times than Rove.

The human brain is on another level than a computer though in terms of analysis. You wouldn't trust a computer to make any major decision in your life currently.

You came off as mad.
That's not a good strategy.

Who will be right more often? JORR or the predictive models?

Who will be right more often? JORR or the predictive models?

I don't think anyone who believes Cabrera has a better season than Trout is attempting to predict anything.

It would likely be a tie.

Hence why Rick is totally off base with the weather and life decision models compared to WAR.

Apology accepted. I have to work now.

Hence why Rick is totally off base with the weather and life decision models compared to WAR.

Rick has clearly studied statistics to some degree, if not extensively. He seems to be speaking from experience regarding the conclusions drawn from sets of numbers.

Don't go to work angry.

You do understand that JORR could pick the weather just as good 14 days from now as the best weather model in the world?

Rick has clearly studied statistics to some degree, if not extensively. He seems to be speaking from experience regarding the conclusions drawn from sets of numbers.

I believe that meteorologists using their predictive models to predict the weather 14 days out would be more accurate over time than JORR just using his brain.

I believe that meteorologists using their predictive models to predict the weather 14 days out would be more accurate over time than JORR just using his brain.