It is currently Wed Nov 27, 2024 12:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
HipCheck26 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, but according to Bernstein during transition: "The Presidents trophy winners have a history of having a lot of success and winning the Stanley Cup." (I'm paraphrasing because the transition podcast isn't up yet)

So I looked up the stats and since 1985-1986 only 7 Presidents Trophy winners have gone on to win the Stanley Cup while 19 did not, with 3 losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's a 27% winning percentage...which isn't too favorable.


I thought he was talking about it in regards to not losing in the first round.

I may be mistaken though.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:22 pm
Posts: 17
Location: Berwyn
pizza_Place: Bacci Pizza
Terry's Peeps wrote:
HipCheck26 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, but according to Bernstein during transition: "The Presidents trophy winners have a history of having a lot of success and winning the Stanley Cup." (I'm paraphrasing because the transition podcast isn't up yet)

So I looked up the stats and since 1985-1986 only 7 Presidents Trophy winners have gone on to win the Stanley Cup while 19 did not, with 3 losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's a 27% winning percentage...which isn't too favorable.


I thought he was talking about it in regards to not losing in the first round.

I may be mistaken though.


You're probably right. My mistake. But even so, there have been 6 Presidents Trophy winners losing in the first round since 85-86. Three out of the four last years have, in fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Don Tiny wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Tad Queasy wrote:
Terry keeps laughing at all the things that Hawk is saying about sabremetrics, but does anyone doubt that Terry wouldn't have the same attitude as Hawk if he weren't paired with Bernsie?


Terry used to like the win and RBI stat until Dan wore him down.


So how does that make him like Hawk? Boers (at least on the surface) learned the lack of value those stats really had, and Hawk hasn't.

Your parenthesis answer your own question

Terry didnt learn anything except that arguing with Bernstein is pointless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
denisdman wrote:
It's so funny how people argue about the value of baseball stats. If you pitch well, then you get more wins. If you hit well, then you get more RBI. Of course, those stats are dependent upon your teammates, but doesn't any sane baseball fan understand the limitations? All stats, even advanced ones have downsides and limitations. Batting average of balls in play is a perfect example.

And some have more downsides than their worth, like Runs Batted In


What is your issue with BABIP?

Dont act like RBI and BABIP are equally flawed, they are not


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79569
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
It's so funny how people argue about the value of baseball stats. If you pitch well, then you get more wins. If you hit well, then you get more RBI. Of course, those stats are dependent upon your teammates, but doesn't any sane baseball fan understand the limitations? All stats, even advanced ones have downsides and limitations. Batting average of balls in play is a perfect example.

And some have more downsides than their worth, like Runs Batted In


What is your issue with BABIP?

Dont act like RBI and BABIP are equally flawed, they are not


Bryan, do you think it's the same batted with men on base as with the bases empty? Do you think some guys are better in pressure situations than others? It's not as if RBI are useless. Guys that drove them in actually did something. I understand that they may not be the best predictor of future performance.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
denisdman wrote:
It's so funny how people argue about the value of baseball stats. If you pitch well, then you get more wins. If you hit well, then you get more RBI. Of course, those stats are dependent upon your teammates, but doesn't any sane baseball fan understand the limitations? All stats, even advanced ones have downsides and limitations. Batting average of balls in play is a perfect example.

And some have more downsides than their worth, like Runs Batted In


What is your issue with BABIP?

Dont act like RBI and BABIP are equally flawed, they are not


Bryan, do you think it's the same batted with men on base as with the bases empty? Do you think some guys are better in pressure situations than others? It's not as if RBI are useless. Guys that drove them in actually did something. I understand that they may not be the best predictor of future performance.

Its not worthless, but it really doesnt tell us much. BAPIP is used differently and a very good indicator if something is a fluke or the real deal.

GW RBI is also not completely useless, but its not good either.


Yes, some guys are better under pressure, but that difference doesnt make up for the fact that early 2000 Red Sox/Yankee players were batting with guys on base all the time while Nick Markakis consistently came up with nobody on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:20 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79569
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Yes, some guys are better under pressure, but that difference doesnt make up for the fact that early 2000 Red Sox/Yankee players were batting with guys on base all the time while Nick Markakis consistently came up with nobody on


Are you sure that's true though? On the surface it seems like it would be. And it probably is. But that's something bernstein does all the time- makes an uneducated assumption. And then he needs Maddux Boy or Quad City Pat to call in and tell him Markakis actually set a record for leaving guys on base. Just recently bernstein assumed that last years's Tigers has a better Pythagorean record than the 2012 White Sox.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Yes, some guys are better under pressure, but that difference doesnt make up for the fact that early 2000 Red Sox/Yankee players were batting with guys on base all the time while Nick Markakis consistently came up with nobody on


Are you sure that's true though? On the surface it seems like it would be. And it probably is. But that's something bernstein does all the time- makes an uneducated assumption. And then he needs Maddux Boy or Quad City Pat to call in and tell him Markakis actually set a record for leaving guys on base. Just recently bernstein assumed that last years's Tigers has a better Pythagorean record than the 2012 White Sox.

No, Im not sure.

Im just using an example off of memory. It doenst matter if that specific thing is true though because what is certainly true is there are large disparities in RBI oppurtunity between players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:33 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79569
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Yes, some guys are better under pressure, but that difference doesnt make up for the fact that early 2000 Red Sox/Yankee players were batting with guys on base all the time while Nick Markakis consistently came up with nobody on


Are you sure that's true though? On the surface it seems like it would be. And it probably is. But that's something bernstein does all the time- makes an uneducated assumption. And then he needs Maddux Boy or Quad City Pat to call in and tell him Markakis actually set a record for leaving guys on base. Just recently bernstein assumed that last years's Tigers has a better Pythagorean record than the 2012 White Sox.

No, Im not sure.

Im just using an example off of memory. It doenst matter if that specific thing is true though because what is certainly true is there are large disparities in RBI oppurtunity between players.


In a given season, sure. But there is no 1500 RBI guy who was less than a great player.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Agreed.

There are also no bad players who had 50+ GW RBI

Its all relative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 15062
pizza_Place: Four hours away....and on fire :-(
HipCheck26 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
HipCheck26 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, but according to Bernstein during transition: "The Presidents trophy winners have a history of having a lot of success and winning the Stanley Cup." (I'm paraphrasing because the transition podcast isn't up yet)

So I looked up the stats and since 1985-1986 only 7 Presidents Trophy winners have gone on to win the Stanley Cup while 19 did not, with 3 losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's a 27% winning percentage...which isn't too favorable.


I thought he was talking about it in regards to not losing in the first round.

I may be mistaken though.


You're probably right. My mistake. But even so, there have been 6 Presidents Trophy winners losing in the first round since 85-86. Three out of the four last years have, in fact.


So we're talking about Presidents Trophy winner and seeing how many "don't lose in the first round." Championships are all that matter, lil' Danny.

_________________
-- source


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 26000
Location: Lurking Below the Surface...
pizza_Place: Dino's Pizza
redskingreg wrote:
HipCheck26 wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
HipCheck26 wrote:
I'm a little late to the party, but according to Bernstein during transition: "The Presidents trophy winners have a history of having a lot of success and winning the Stanley Cup." (I'm paraphrasing because the transition podcast isn't up yet)

So I looked up the stats and since 1985-1986 only 7 Presidents Trophy winners have gone on to win the Stanley Cup while 19 did not, with 3 losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. That's a 27% winning percentage...which isn't too favorable.


I thought he was talking about it in regards to not losing in the first round.

I may be mistaken though.


You're probably right. My mistake. But even so, there have been 6 Presidents Trophy winners losing in the first round since 85-86. Three out of the four last years have, in fact.


So we're talking about Presidents Trophy winner and seeing how many "don't lose in the first round." Championships are all that matter, lil' Danny.
And Bernstein should know that the Los Angeles Kings were an #8 seed and they won the Stanley Cup last year. Thank goalie Jonathan Quick for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 15062
pizza_Place: Four hours away....and on fire :-(
HOLY FLYING FUCKING HOG SHIT FUCK, SCHUSTER, LEARN HOW TO SAY "EVERY" CORRECTLY. IT'S NOT EVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
-- source


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:55 pm
Posts: 26000
Location: Lurking Below the Surface...
pizza_Place: Dino's Pizza
redskingreg wrote:
HOLY FLYING FUCKING HOG SHIT FUCK, SCHUSTER, LEARN HOW TO SAY "EVERY" CORRECTLY. IT'S NOT EVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He also kept referring to the Rays as the "D' Rays" during his updates, I think from the Berto Center in Deerfield.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:13 pm
Posts: 15062
pizza_Place: Four hours away....and on fire :-(
SHARK wrote:
redskingreg wrote:
HOLY FLYING FUCKING HOG SHIT FUCK, SCHUSTER, LEARN HOW TO SAY "EVERY" CORRECTLY. IT'S NOT EVEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He also kept referring to the Rays as the "D' Rays" during his updates, I think from the Berto Center in Deerfield.


Thanks for the tip, SHARK. Now I know where to send my angry facsimiles.

_________________
-- source


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group