Are we going to miss the 80 stolen bases?

[RShack]

Speaking of strawmen...

People who pointedly exclude themselves from the "stat-guys" group are the only ones who claim that stat-guys think they can quantify everything. Almost all real stat-guys realize there are limitations to what they can definitively know.

Speaking of chasing me around...

I never said that serious stat-guys think that. I said it because it's entirely normal for some folks look to stats as the overriding basis for resolving every baseball question that comes up around here.

[Lucky Jim]

Speaking of chasing me around...

I never said that serious stat-guys think that. I said it because it's entirely normal for some folks look to stats as the overriding basis for resolving every baseball question that comes up around here.

Or, we focus on the answerable questions (the ones that math works for) and avoid the questions that aren't answerable...

...which imperceptibly shifts the discussion away from the unknowable.

[RShack]

Or, we focus on the answerable questions (the ones that math works for) and avoid the questions that aren't answerable...

...which imperceptibly shifts the discussion away from the unknowable.

I see that you equate "answerable questions" with "the ones that math works for". That's a crazy thing to say. There's always been lots of things that people have known that do not involve using math about to know it. You're excluding a lot of things that matter. According to your premise, everything answerable is reduced to being a stat-issue.

[Sports Guy]

Or, we focus on the answerable questions (the ones that math works for) and avoid the questions that aren't answerable...

...which imperceptibly shifts the discussion away from the unknowable.

Plus, if someone does answer him, either with facts or opinions, he twists the words or comes up with bogus theories as to why it is the wrong answer.

It gets to the point where it isn't worth it anymore.