But you may have a better idea about who he is from watching. What is different now from when he had All-Star level WAR the past couple years? We're having the same kind of conversation about Trout where you seem to think I'm silly for not acknowledging him as some kind of great, and while I don't believe he will fall as precipitously as Castro has, I do think he will have some not-so-great seasons. I know WAR tells us Castro was good in 2011 and he's bad now, but why is it that way?

_________________
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

I think Trout will be good. But that is just a guess, I admit that. What makes you think he will fall?

Castro is bad because his swing and approach have changed. WAR doesn't tell me that, and I'm not saying it will. Nor would I attempt to cite WAR as to why he isn't good. WAR is just telling me how bad he is right now.

Yeah, he may be a special player.

Cabrera is something else though. He's almost more likely to get on base than make out. Frank was like that for awhile, but like I said, that was the steroid/juiced ball era or whatever you want to call it. And while I'd like to believe Frank wasn't juiced, a guy from a major college football program... Anyway, I think the likelihood is that they have messed with the ball and that affected the game more than drugs. Pitchers are in command now like they haven't been since prior to the introduction of the DH and Cabrera is dominating like never before.

_________________
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

Really, just because most guys do. It's not an easy game. I don't think Puig is going to hit .400 either. That's the safe stance. I'm not saying Trout is anything but a very good or maybe even great player. But I also don't expect him to do what Cabrera has already done, which is extraordinary.

_________________
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

Trout got out of the gate slow but he's been a monster since. Everything has been there except the home runs and they're coming. The eye test tells you he is special.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

What are they good at predicting? Next year, when they release all of their information, what can I look at think it is highly likely will be right? Will they come up with more accurate predictions than the average intelligent baseball fan?
Sounds like a flawed statistic for a team game then. Basically, Paul Konerko can cost his team over 1 win this year, and Dayan Viciedo can cost his team over 1 win this year, but Paul Konerko and Dayan Viciedo combined are not causing their team over 2 wins combined?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That doesnt make it a bad example.

It would be better to see the TV than not see the TV, correct?

That's the whole argument here.

It's like you don't even realize that your baseball analysis has simply become "What is his WAR?".

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No, I realize that. I don't watch enough baseball outside of the Cubs to add much to the conversation outside of WAR and other stats. The thing is, I don't think a lot of other people do, either.

If I wanted to know the size, the frame rate, weight, etc... I could find that online. Don't need to see that.

What are you saying? Is it that WAR basically trumps everything else?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Is this a bit?

Would seeing it hurt your research or help it?


The answer: It would help

Any other answer is pure insanity

Stats + Watching games > Stats + Not watching games


You would think that would go without saying, but apparently not

I never said 5-8 was good. The rest of Sale's stats are at or near the top of the AL. He is having a great year on a bad team.

Post some proof that baseball sells more merch. Are baseball's TV deals in the billions like the NFL is?

Its not the same team. Last year's team had Peavy, Floyd, AJ, and Youkilis. Dunn, Konerko, and Rios were also a LOT better last year than this year. Nate Jones were much better out of the pen, and they had Brett Myers in the pen for the 2nd half of the season. The Sox lost 6 games in the standings in 10 days in September. The Sox KNEW they were over their heads last year, they KNEW Detroit was better, and THEY themselves folded under that pressure. That is a choke.

_________________

In most discussions I participate in or view, yes. I find WAR to be better.

It does, you still just don't understand my point, I'll try again.


It's a better experience. I wish I could watch more baseball than I do.


But it does NOT add much to the conversation when trying to discuss the value of a player, compared to others. Key sentence.

Then I consider you just as bad as the "Math sucks" crowd, just on the other side of it. One blindly rejects it. One blindly follows it. Both are bad.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No, Im not missing anything.

You are wrong. Black and White. It DOES add. Whether you think its "much" is immaterial. It helps.

Its better to watch and follow stats than not.

That's all Im saying. I dont know what you are attempting to argue but that is fact.


Your WAR in this thread is like -3.9 but one would have to actually read it to really see how poor it is.

That makes no sense. I'm not "blindly" following it. It's basically a theory that I have learned to understand and follow. That's not blindly following it.


I wholeheartedly believe in 'scouting' if that means anything. If I ran a team, I would rely heavily on scouting and stats. But back to your question, most of the time players value are being discussed, it not with a scout. So I lean on the WAR.

Yea, you still don't understand. It helps YOU. You watching does not help me and the debate about a player's value. And you're 200 at bats certainly wouldn't help a conversation about Trout vs Cabrera. That's my point. Whatever you think you're picking up in those 200 at bats, probably isn't going to sway what I can get from their WAR. I'm talking about a discussion here, I hope you understand that.

People use the same rationale for the "eye test" too.

Again, if you honestly think in a baseball discussion, that you can say "His WAR is X so that ends the discussion" you are blindly following it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I don't. If the WAR of 2 players are relatively similar, it's definitely open for discussion for which is more valuable. If the WAR of two players are very far off, then yea, I highly doubt someone is going to change my opinion the value they have had.

And I do recognize there are statistical anomalies... outliers, etc. It's not perfect.

You are flopping back now. You said that WAR trumps everything else.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yea, still got it and you still sound ridiculous

Of course watching 200 at bats would help sway the conversation.

This is insanity

And the Trout vs Cabrera argument was the perfect example of why both watching and stats are vital.


If you can learn nothing from watching 200 at bats, then you must not know how to watch baseball or what to look for.


Dont try and twist this conversation to anything other than the basic principle of me saying "The best way to do it, is to use numbers and watch games together" and you attempting to argue against that fact.

You still don't understand. You CAN learn from 200 at bats. But what you learn isn't going to be very relevant in a conversation with ME. In a debate with me. I don't trust what you saw in the 200 at bats. That has no value to OUR conversation. Yes it has value to you, internally. But not to me. If I'm trying to decide Trout vs Cabrera... I'm not weighing what you think you saw in 200 at bats into my decision. Should you? Sure, if you want. It just doesn't do much for my decision making... what you saw.

That's not flopping at all, and I made this exact point earlier in this thread. WAR, as a method for assigning value to a player, in my experiences trump the other things people try to bring to a baseball conversation.

Arrogance and denial of facts is not a good combo, Chris

You dont trust my eyes. That's fine. But you already said you trust scouts.

So you trust what some people see, just not all.


Im saying "Watching + Stats is better than Not Watching + Stats"


Then add the arrogance of acting like Im missing your point, which is not a point, so much as a justification for why watching games doesnt matter, which is quite ridiculous


Ill use math just for you

If X = research and Y = another form of research then X+Y > X


I dont care that you think it adds little. The fact is it ADDS to your knowledge and its always best to have the most information possible.

I think the bolded portion above might be the root of the problem.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

It's not an arrogance, really, it's just going with what I have seen works better. I personally could truly watch 100 at bats closely, and can't imagine myself coming away with anything substantial that the world should need to know. I would listen to your thoughts on the 100 abs if we were talking about predictions... you could tell me what you've seen form his stance, and changes he's made whatever, and that may help with what's GOING to happen. That makes sense and has value. But I'm just not going to find much value in your thoughts about what has already happened, when WAR does a good job of taking in to account a lot of variables... more than you can.