Chen

[Crazysilver03]

Does it make you feel better to assume that a statistic that accumulates every intangible and every possible statistic into value is the be all and end all?

Ha this again? No one believes that accept for you. This has been pointed out to you several times. No one sees WAR as the end all be all. You have been told this enough times that now you are deliberately distorting your point to be argumentative. You don't want to learn. Nor do you want to discuss.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[brianod]

I've watched Chen over three years now, very closely. He's a good number 3. This organization can't afford to give him what others can. That's the bottom line. I don't need a summary stat to tell me his worth, I've seen it.

Actually, at his best, he might be a slightly below average #2. But, either way, I appreciate his service and anticipate him getting overpaid.

[Crazysilver03]

I've watched Chen over three years now, very closely. He's a good number 3. This organization can't afford to give him what others can. That's the bottom line. I don't need a summary stat to tell me his worth, I've seen it.

So you don't even use ERA? Or wins? Or strikeouts?

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[brianod]

Ha this again? No one believes that accept for you. This has been pointed out to you several times. No one sees WAR as the end all be all. You have been told this enough times that now you are deliberately distorting your point to be argumentative. You don't want to learn. Nor do you want to discuss.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

I'm spitting into the wind, going against the current trend and trusting three years of watching him to determine what I think he's worth. I don't care what war, fwar or fip says. He is very consistently above average, but never dominant.

[DrungoHazewood]

Ha this again? No one believes that accept for you. This has been pointed out to you several times. No one sees WAR as the end all be all. You have been told this enough times that now you are deliberately distorting your point to be argumentative. You don't want to learn. Nor do you want to discuss.

When you consistently paint your opponent as a caricature of a hyperbolic exaggeration while romanticizing the past and mocking progress it sometimes helps you win primary elections. But you're still going to get embarrassed in the general election.

[Crazysilver03]

I'm spitting into the wind, going against the current trend and trusting three years of watching him to determine what I think he's worth. I don't care what war, fwar or fip says. He is very consistently above average, but never dominant.

That's cool. A lot of other people have done that here in this thread too. So no, you are also not some stand alone martyr. But please, keep spitting into the wind. Maybe when enough ends up back in your eyes you will actually look for some knowledge.

Btw, you say Chen is never dominant? I thought you have watched him closely for three years. How would you characterize his last Start, if not dominant?

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm spitting into the wind, going against the current trend and trusting three years of watching him to determine what I think he's worth. I don't care what war, fwar or fip says. He is very consistently above average, but never dominant.

You're going against the current trend like the Ptolemy disciples were going against the trendy followers of Galileo.

[brianod]

Drungo, I believe stats matter. But, I don't believe summarizing them into one value is accurate. It takes a human to look at the aggregate stats and make a judgment. I believe summary stats are inaccurate and simplistic. Sorry, I may be in the minority and I don't mean to insult anyone, but that's my opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, I believe stats matter. But, I don't believe summarizing them into one value is accurate. It takes a human to look at the aggregate stats and make a judgment. I believe summary stats are inaccurate and simplistic. Sorry, I may be in the minority and I don't mean to insult anyone, but that's my opinion.

I mean, that's fine, you can think what you want. But it flies in the face of logic. You're saying that using a systematic, rigorous, peer-reviewed approach to weighting the values of various components of a player's performance is greatly inferior to weighting that stuff in your head in whatever way you feel like at the moment.

[Crazysilver03]

I mean, that's fine, you can think what you want. But it flies in the face of logic. You're saying that using a systematic, rigorous, peer-reviewed approach to weighting the values of various components of a player's performance is greatly inferior to weighting that stuff in your head in whatever way you feel like at the moment.

You know, plus the fact he is using summary and associative facts in his head without realizing it. You just don't assign Chen as a 12M a year guy without knowing what the market is paying and what guys similar to him are doing. Not only is it fighting logic it is also fighting basic psychology.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[brianod]

I mean, that's fine, you can think what you want. But it flies in the face of logic. You're saying that using a systematic, rigorous, peer-reviewed approach to weighting the values of various components of a player's performance is greatly inferior to weighting that stuff in your head in whatever way you feel like at the moment.

No, I'm saying that summarizing a hundred stats into one value is not accurate. You can call it systematic and rigorous. I call it simplistic and inaccurate. We disagree but I do so with respect.

[Crazysilver03]

No, I'm saying that summarizing a hundred stats into one value is not accurate. You can call it systematic and rigorous. I call it simplistic and inaccurate. We disagree but I do so with respect.

You don't do it with respect. Which is why you get these reactions. You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't mean you are talking with logic.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[brianod]

You don't do it with respect. Which is why you get these reactions. You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't mean you are talking with logic.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Why would I say I do it with respect if I don't? That flies against all logic. If I was 100% sure of everything I say, I would say so. This is a board where we share opinions and we often disagree. I thought that was the point of this board. A technical disagreement doesn't have to be personal and can be made with respect. I don't take it personally when we disagree, it's just one person's opinion vs another one's. I don't think I'm smarter than you, I don't know you. But, I do know this game inside and out and I do have an informed opinion. Right, or wrong.

[DrungoHazewood]

No, I'm saying that summarizing a hundred stats into one value is not accurate. You can call it systematic and rigorous. I call it simplistic and inaccurate. We disagree but I do so with respect.

So you replace what you call simplistic and inaccurate with something necessarily less accurate and more simplistic? I don't understand.