Question about approach and process.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The point he was making clearly is that statics are a kind of lie. He didn't say can be or in the wrong hands. He didn't qualify it in any way. No doubt he was making a joke. But what context do you know about that would have him mean other wise. We see statistics abused here all the time to support questionable conclusions. Not to mention in politics and advertising.

Yes, I do recall that Mark Twain was a technical writer who spelled out everything exactly for us. Of course stotle is right. The quote by Twain was and should not to be taken literally.

[weams]

Well, you apparently know enough to call it "trendy". Is OPS a good enough ballpark stat, sure it is, but woba is more exact.

You are uncertain you don't understand the weights? Like what specifically, don't you understand? You don't understand understand how a SLG percentage can driven by homeruns can be more valuable that a SLG percentage driven by singles. You don't understand or agree that OBP is more valuable the SLG percentage and that this is not accurately weighted in OPS? What is it exactly that you don't agree with about weighted averages?

These concepts aren't "trendy", they are universally agreed upon and have been by the professionals who have studied and done this for years. This isn't defensive metrics. The only quabble may be some minor details. So how do you justify your statement that this is a 'trendy" stat and what is it that you don't get? It's the heart of offensive player evaluation. Provide something. Do some research and provide a coherent response before spouting complete nonsense.

You really don't understand how park factor can affect raw OPS or weighted averages/woba. You don't get that a player playing in OPACY can have different/better results than the same player playing in Tropicana Field? Is it really that difficult to comprehend (whether you agree on the particular player/results or not), that comparing raw numbers in a cases like this is pretty dumb analysis?

You're better than this.

Thank you for answering. I do see where your explanation is going with this. I probably was too broad with the term trendy. Heck of a game today. I think that you and I both agree that Adam Jones is far superior to James Loney.

[El Gordo]

Yes, I do recall that Mark Twain was a technical writer who spelled out everything exactly for us. Of course stotle is right. The quote by Twain was and should not to be taken literally.

You channel Twain or perhaps Stotle does, so you can tell us what he actually meant? All we have is the statement itself, and it can't be construed to be mitigating in anyway, without projecting ones own biases. Simply put he was saying statistics are a kind of a lie. No doubt he was making a joke, but know one knows to what extent or whathe really thought of them beyond what he says there.

[DrungoHazewood]

You channel Twain or perhaps Stotle does, so you can tell us what he actually meant? All we have is the statement itself, and it can't be construed to be mitigating in anyway, without projecting ones own biases. Simply put he was saying statistics are a kind of a lie. No doubt he was making a joke, but know one knows to what extent or whathe really thought of them beyond what he says there.

And we know that the vast majority of the time someone quotes that in reference to baseball they are using it to support their position that some statistic they don't like is wrong. Instead of convincing people with evidence.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You channel Twain or perhaps Stotle does, so you can tell us what he actually meant? All we have is the statement itself, and it can't be construed to be mitigating in anyway, without projecting ones own biases. Simply put he was saying statistics are a kind of a lie. No doubt he was making a joke, but know one knows to what extent or what the really thought of them beyond what he says there.

Well, you're the literary type more than I, so I'm pretty sure you know that these things are left open to some level of interpretation and thought for a reason. If it wasn't that way, it wouldn't be art/philosophy, it would be science. I think we can agree the Twain wasn't a scientist.

He meant that they can be used to lie and deceive, not that they all statistics are literally lies. I think anyone one with some common sense could probably infer that. Then again, I am arguing with you about this.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Thank you for answering. I do see where your explanation is going with this. I probably was too broad with the term trendy. Heck of a game today. I think that you and I both agree that Adam Jones is far superior to James Loney.

Yes he is, but Loney likely was a comparable player offensively last year.