How Many Stats Guru's Predicted That....

[Crazysilver03]

Here is where I must strongly disagree. I am much less condescending towards any stats-minded people than they are to me. Its not even close.

This is something you routinely do. You only reject one sentence of a post.

What about the other parts of my post? Or does that "question your intelligence as a fan?"

People come across condescending because you try to completely write off stats. There are a lot of people on this forum that hold the same views as you, not just to such an extreme and they get along fine with everyone else.

[Old#5fan]

Level #1: Has seen a baseball game, enjoys it, wants to see more.

Level #2: Has started rooting for the hometown team, follows particular players.

Level #3: Developed interest in farm system, has particular ideas on in-game strategy.

Level #4: Avidly reads books, articles, websites, etc. to further knowledge of the game, stats used to measure and evaluate, and engages in debates with fellow fans on a variety of topics.

Level Old #5: Has been watching baseball for over 40 years, tells anyone who'll listen that they've been watching baseball for over 40 years, dismisses all opinions by people who haven't been watching baseball for at least 40 years, refuses to examine own beliefs they've held on to for over 40 years, and wants you to get off his lawn.

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it. I especially like the lawn part. :clap3:Just don't forgit it either Whippersnapper!

[Old#5fan]

This is something you routinely do. You only reject one sentence of a post.

What about the other parts of my post? Or does that "question your intelligence as a fan?"

People come across condescending because you try to completely write off stats. There are a lot of people on this forum that hold the same views as you, not just to such an extreme and they get along fine with everyone else.

You are no doubt correct on this, but what do you want me to do about it? When you get to be my age you too will likely be a bit more "set in your ways." I simply stick to my guns. I am sorry if that offends anyone. I cannot help it. That is how I am built or my core personality. However, you wish to put it. I, like every other human being but one, have many flaws. One thing though I am not, and that is a phoney who is here trying to impress anyone. I am what I am. (Sounds a little like Popeye, which is what I watched as a kid on tv).:laughlol:

[Crazysilver03]

You are no doubt correct on this, but what do you want me to do about it? When you get to be my age you too will likely be a bit more "set in your ways." I simply stick to my guns. I am sorry if that offends anyone. I cannot help it. That is how I am built or my core personality. However, you wish to put it.

I understand that you base your opinion on what you see, even if you may be blind because you are an OldFan. Others like to look at statistics.

The big difference is that no one uses statistics solely. If we did, there would be no reason to watch the games. Stats are a good predictor, there is a high correlation.

Stats arent going to predict 100%, BUT they do predict around 70%. That is a damn fine number. There is never going to be anything to predict something 100%, but there are some stats that are good predictors, such as doubles will turn into homeruns, but you cant say triples are going to turn into doubles.

You are trying to attack the people that use stats, but YOU are the one making the argument against stats people SIMPLISTIC.

This is my post from before. I am just trying to show you that say that using stats oversimplifies the game but they really aren't.

This whole thread is based on your trying to show that stats dont work. You are correct in that they dont work all the time but there is no reason to take a personal shot at the people who like to use stats.

[Crazysilver03]

And to use the wholistic approach (observation + statistics), Payton has more homeruns than Scott because Payton is only swinging for the fences right now. He either popsout or hits a homerun in the last week. When he puts the ball in play it doesnt do much.

Scott is the better play right now because of it. As I mentioned in a previous argument, doubles are a good predictor of homeruns because all it requires is for the double to go a little farther. Scott was unhealthy for most of the season so far but he is healthy now and will probably eclipse his numbers from last season.

If he doesnt, it is because he is restricted to a small amount of at-bats due to illness or inneffectiveness or a combination of the two.

You mentioned how you wouldnt take the bet that Payton would hit more because he wont be given the opportunity to do so, which is correct. Payton has gotten so many at-bats recently because of the illness that Scott has had. Payton is not the better of the two players.

[ChaosLex]

And to use the wholistic approach (observation + statistics), Payton has more homeruns than Scott because Payton is only swinging for the fences right now. He either popsout or hits a homerun in the last week. When he puts the ball in play it doesnt do much.

Scott is the better play right now because of it. As I mentioned in a previous argument, doubles are a good predictor of homeruns because all it requires is for the double to go a little farther. Scott was unhealthy for most of the season so far but he is healthy now and will probably eclipse his numbers from last season.

If he doesnt, it is because he is restricted to a small amount of at-bats due to illness or inneffectiveness or a combination of the two.

You mentioned how you wouldnt take the bet that Payton would hit more because he wont be given the opportunity to do so, which is correct. Payton has gotten so many at-bats recently because of the illness that Scott has had. Payton is not the better of the two players.

Not on topic, but your avatar makes me giggle. :laughlol:

[Objectivity]

Payton is more of a homer/power guy this season than Scott. Why is this so statistical experts? Some where ready to swap Payton for Terrero just a couple of days ago.

Maybe because he's hitting the ball harder?

Chicks dig the long ball and it's a great momentum shifter, but they aren't consistent and they are only a small part of the whole package.

Tony Batista also hit a significant number of home runs for this team. He also had over 100 strike outs a year and a crappy OPS. In the big picture, his home runs were hurting the team because it was all or nothing.

If you have someone like Bonds who can get a .500 OBP because he's such a threat to hit a home run, then the lack of an ability to do anything else is acceptable. That's not the case with Payton.

[Old#5fan]

And to use the wholistic approach (observation + statistics), Payton has more homeruns than Scott because Payton is only swinging for the fences right now. He either popsout or hits a homerun in the last week. When he puts the ball in play it doesnt do much.

Scott is the better play right now because of it. As I mentioned in a previous argument, doubles are a good predictor of homeruns because all it requires is for the double to go a little farther. Scott was unhealthy for most of the season so far but he is healthy now and will probably eclipse his numbers from last season.

If he doesnt, it is because he is restricted to a small amount of at-bats due to illness or inneffectiveness or a combination of the two.

You mentioned how you wouldnt take the bet that Payton would hit more because he wont be given the opportunity to do so, which is correct. Payton has gotten so many at-bats recently because of the illness that Scott has had. Payton is not the better of the two players.

I agree with you that this season Scott is the better player over Payton and I too want him in the lineup more than Jay. However, I don't think either one of them is much of a home run hitter, and that comes from observation more than anything.

[ScottieBaseball]

Actually, I believe what I have been espousing is relying solely on stats to predict the future is an utterly worthless endeavor. I have never proclaimed using stats to be worthless when combined with observation, scouting, and common sense.

But...but...you did...earlier in this thread, without qualification you called reliance on statistics a crap shoot.

[Crazysilver03]

I agree with you that this season Scott is the better player over Payton and I too want him in the lineup more than Jay. However, I don't think either one of them is a home run hitter.

Last season was the first that Scott didnt hit roughly 30 homeruns in a season. How is that not a homerun hitter?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-osnotes0517,0,3166512.story

Power surge

Though outfielder Luke Scott didn't find his name in the Orioles' lineup tonight, he seems to have rediscovered his power stroke.

Scott has made an adjustment in his stance that might be responsible for the two home runs he hit in his past three games. Forced to stand taller in the batter's box to compensate for a painful left Achilles' tendon, Scott recently has been able to lower his stance and derive more power from his legs.

"That's how I've hit in the past," said Scott, who hadn't homered since April 8 until connecting Tuesday against Boston Red Sox ace Josh Beckett. "I haven't really hit with my legs since '06. Whenever I got down, it bothered my Achilles'. Before that, on breaking balls, my center of balance wouldn't get off. I was able to stay more level on balls and stay more in a power position and get more on the ball. I've been able to go back to that because my Achilles' is feeling better. Maybe that's had something to do with it.

"I hit 38 homers a year until '07. I couldn't drive. I couldn't get that push. It's been frustrating."

Scott also tends to be a streaky hitter, an explanation he recently passed along to manager Dave Trembley.

"It's one of those things with the season," Scott said. "The game of baseball, you're going to go through ups and downs."

Said Trembley: "I don't think we all realize how drained he was physically. He was sick for a long time. I don't think he's completely over it yet."

[The Rick]

Did you base this prediction, which is pretty d*mn close to hitting the nail on the head, on statistical analysis or you observations as a seasoned fan of this board over the years?

Note: You made this prediction in only the 4th response on the very first page.

And now it is 10 pages. My goodness.

I couldn't have done it without statistical analysis, but my observations of the forum over the years helped as well. Figure that out, a balance of both?

[Old#5fan]

But...but...you did...earlier in this thread, without qualification you called reliance on statistics a crap shoot.

As a stand alone predictor (which is what I meant) yes. You cannot rely on stats to predict anything with 100% certainty. I have posted that many times. In fact predicting anything with certainty using any method is not 100%.

[BaltimoreTerp]

But...but...you did...earlier in this thread, without qualification you called reliance on statistics a crap shoot.

Dude, you're a staff member. You should know not to feed the trolls.

I'm just a dweeb with nothing else to do; I don't know any better. Leave the debate to guys like me

[BRobinsonfan]

I didn't respond because your example was so over-simplified it was an insult to my intelligence. I have been watching baseball for over 40 years. The stuff you are explaining is like you are trying to explain baseball to a second grader. I passed Baseball 101 45 years ago. Get off your high horse and realize what level of a fan you are engaging with buddy or I will ignore you.

You're like 6 years older than me. Get over yourself. And believe me... I'm well aware of "what level of fan" i'm engaging with.

[Mark Carver]

Last season was the first that Scott didnt hit roughly 30 homeruns in a season. How is that not a homerun hitter?

Come on 40 years of watching baseball and 137 plate appearances this year, even a blind man can tell...