Jump to content

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


Old#5fan

Recommended Posts

I read it all. The question is did you read all of mine? I stand by my stance that predicting baseball stats is a crapshoot for anyone on this planet, stats guru, expert analyst or just observant fan of over 40 years or more. Crapshoot period for anyone. This is what (at least to me) makes following the game so interesting. The great unknown of what is going to happen in a at bat, inning, game or season.

Shenanigans! "Crap shoot" implies that it's random, almost like a game of chance. It's not. Again...I'm far from a stat-head, but statistics by definition are scientific, empirical data. It's perfectly logical, reasonable, fair, etc. to review a particular player's statistics regarding his past performance and formulate a prediction (based largely on the stats) on future performance that can be considered credible.

Again...nobody believes them to be an absolutely 100% reliable, crystal ball-like future-teller, but to go to the other end of the spectrum and call them a crap shoot is entirely incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply
He didn't "observe" them. He needs to physically see the swing that resulted in every single homer, exactly where every homer lands, whether the homers were caught by people in the stands or not, and whether or not the pitcher had a "soft face."

Well your system is far from complete. You have to know the names of all the pitchers he took deep. With the info your gathering you could be fooled into thinking a player was better than he was. But for all we know the player could have a very high ABAPWWN (at bats against pitchers with weak names). Just because a hitter can rake against the Hayden's of the world does not make him any good. :eektf:

PS if anyone would like me to share my ABAPWWN excel spreadsheet just let me know.:wedge:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world do you "listen" to "nonsensical rantings" or anything else when reading a "written" post on an internet message board? I did'nt know my voice could be heard when I type something?:confused::scratchchinhmm:

Eh, careful here Oldie Oldenstein. You're the one who keeps using the phrase "past stats", as if we had a choice between them and future stats. Not to mention your creative use of punctuation, spelling, syntax, etc.

Anyway, we all get the schtick by this point -- you're old and have been watching baseball since just around the time the earth cooled, so you don't need no stinkin' fancy-pants statistics to help you recognize talent on the baseball field. Too bad you don't have the courtesy to let other people use them as they see fit without starting threads like this, proclaiming it's "humorous" that stat gurus are wrong, can't admit it, stats are useless, blah blah blah.

And as for your holy trinity of stats -- average, HR, and RBI -- perhaps you remember back in 1879 when RBI's were first introduced in newspapers, and the backlash that occurred because fans even way back then understood that RBI's tell you very little about a player's ability because they're so context dependent. The Chicago Tribune practically apologized for the stat.

But please, keep using RBI's as a way to gauge player ability, and don't hesitate to tell us that we're fooling ourselves, we can't recognize talent when we see it, and to get off your lawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shenanigans! "Crap shoot" implies that it's random, almost like a game of chance. It's not. Again...I'm far from a stat-head, but statistics by definition are scientific, empirical data. It's perfectly logical, reasonable, fair, etc. to review a particular player's statistics regarding his past performance and formulate a prediction (based largely on the stats) on future performance that can be considered credible.

Again...nobody believes them to be an absolutely 100% reliable, crystal ball-like future-teller, but to go to the other end of the spectrum and call them a crap shoot is entirely incorrect.

The prediction may be "credible" based on what is viewed as normal methodology but that doesn't mean it will be of any value in correctly predicting the player's future stats for any particular year. In other words nobody has anyway of knowing whether Jay Payton will hit more homers than Luke Scott this season. No way, no how. They can guess at it based on past stats but that is no better a guess than anyone else who is not a stats guru can make. That is my point here. Any guess is a crap shoot. Past stats are simply not reliable enough to predict anything in the future any more reliably than a simple guess or range as to what 'might' occur. Stats experts simply need to sincerely admit this instead of acting like they have more insight to the future than the average observant fan does, and I will move on. In other words past stats don't translate into future stats automatically as some here chose to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, careful here Oldie Oldenstein. You're the one who keeps using the phrase "past stats", as if we had a choice between them and future stats. Not to mention your creative use of punctuation, spelling, syntax, etc.

Anyway, we all get the schtick by this point -- you're old and have been watching baseball since just around the time the earth cooled, so you don't need no stinkin' fancy-pants statistics to help you recognize talent on the baseball field. Too bad you don't have the courtesy to let other people use them as they see fit without starting threads like this, proclaiming it's "humorous" that stat gurus are wrong, can't admit it, stats are useless, blah blah blah.

And as for your holy trinity of stats -- average, HR, and RBI -- perhaps you remember back in 1879 when RBI's were first introduced in newspapers, and the backlash that occurred because fans even way back then understood that RBI's tell you very little about a player's ability because they're so context dependent. The Chicago Tribune practically apologized for the stat.

But please, keep using RBI's as a way to gauge player ability, and don't hesitate to tell us that we're fooling ourselves, we can't recognize talent when we see it, and to get off your lawn.

Why can't you have past stats and future stats? What do you call stats that have yet to occur? It would have to be future or projected stats, what else could you call them?:confused::scratchchinhmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can guess at it based on past stats but that is no better a guess than anyone else who is not a stats guru can make. That is my point here. Any guess is a crap shoot.

To quote Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

If you can't see that there is a range of accuracy in any guess, that not all guesses are the same animal, and that you're engaging in exactly the same behavior that you've been railing against lo these many weeks here, then I'm forced to believe that it is, in fact, deliberate. And that is the hallmark of a troll, my friend.

*sigh*

I guess I'll dust off the "ignore" button...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't you have past stats and future stats? What do you call stats that have yet to occur? It would have to be future or projected stats, what else could you call them?:confused::scratchchinhmm:

Right, I'm referring to you saying that people use past stats to predict things, as if you could use future stats to predict things, which would be difficult as they would be predictions already. Man, you're in fine form lately! I haven't had to spell things out this clearly since I was subbing in Philly elementary schools! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I'm referring to you saying that people use past stats to predict things, as if you could use future stats to predict things, which would be difficult as they would be predictions already. Man, you're in fine form lately! I haven't had to spell things out this clearly since I was subbing in Philly elementary schools! ;)

I now see your point but in my view I was looking at stats in this manner:

past stats = anything the prior year and before

present stats= current year so far

future stats = current year after the present and beyond.

I know this probably doesn't make sense to you but that is how I view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prediction may be "credible" based on what is viewed as normal methodology but that doesn't mean it will be of any value in correctly predicting the player's future stats for any particular year. In other words nobody has anyway of knowing whether Jay Payton will hit more homers than Luke Scott this season. No way, no how. They can guess at it based on past stats but that is no better a guess than anyone else who is not a stats guru can make. That is my point here. Any guess is a crap shoot. Past stats are simply not reliable enough to predict anything in the future any more reliably than a simple guess or range as to what 'might' occur. Stats experts simply need to sincerely admit this instead of acting like they have more insight to the future than the average observant fan does, and I will move on. In other words past stats don't translate into future stats automatically as some here chose to believe.

WHAT PART OF "NOBODY BELIEVES STATISTICS ARE 100% ACCURATE AND RELIABLE 100% OF THE TIME" DO YOU KEEP MISSING???

Holy cow...just because they're not exact and 100% reliable doesn't mean the useless. If the weatherman says there's a 80% chance of rain, are you going to grab an umbrella? Just because the weatherman says it's likely and it doesn't happen, does that discredit the entire field of meteorology? It seems as though you'd be more inclined to rely on the weatherman's Aunt Hilda who swears every time it's going to rain her sciatica flares up, so..."It's gonna rain today!"

It's exactly the same relationship. It's a prediction based on empirical data. When it's all said and done, more often than not, stats (and the National Weather Service...not TV personalities regurgitating a 90-second report that was handed to them just before the cameras were turned on) are proven to be reliable indicators of what's likely to open when applied to a large sample size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

If you can't see that there is a range of accuracy in any guess, that not all guesses are the same animal, and that you're engaging in exactly the same behavior that you've been railing against lo these many weeks here, then I'm forced to believe that it is, in fact, deliberate. And that is the hallmark of a troll, my friend.

*sigh*

I guess I'll dust off the "ignore" button...

Okay. Let me try to explain. I was originally taken to task here by many stats people for stating before the season began that I thought Luke Scott would hit 12-14 homers at the maximum this season. I got a raft of crap from a whole bunch of people spouting, but, but, BUT he hit 18 in 359 at bats last year! To that I replied that was meaningless to me as he is changing teams and leagues and what he did last year is pretty much non-applicable as a predictor of this season. To that I got a bigger raft of crap about I was ignoring all of his minor league at bats, blah, blah, blah, and the fact he was in a less homer friendly park last season, blah, blah, blah.

My point is this, I did use his past or prior year stats to make a prediction but only in a very general sense. I took what most "experts" here were proclaiming for his homer output 24-32 range and cut it in half because of the change of teams and leagues. To this, I was laughed at and derided. Yet, my guess is just as good as anyone else's and I have just as much a chance as being right as anyone. So far, I am actually looking pretty good on my guess. The point I am trying to make here is there is no absolute right or wrong way to make an "educated" guess in predicting stats. People just need to concede this point and I am finished here with this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. Let me try to explain. I was originally taken to task here by many stats people for stating before the season began that I thought Luke Scott would hit 12-14 homers at the maximum this season. I got a raft of crap from a whole bunch of people spouting, but, but BUT he hit 18 in 359 at bats last year. To that I replied that was meaningless to me as he is changing teams and leagues and what he did last year is pretty much non-applicable as a predictor of this season. To that I got a bigger raft of crap about I was ignoring all of his minor league at bats, blah, blah, blah, and the fact he was in a less homer friendly park last season, blah, blah, blah.

My point is this, I did use his past or prior year stats to make a prediction but only in a very general sense. I took what most "experts" here were proclaiming for his homer output 24-30 range and cut it in half because of the change of teams and leagues. To this, I was laughed at and derided. Yet, my guess is just as good as anyone else's and I have just as much a chance as being right as anyone. So far, I am actually looking pretty good on my guess. The point I am trying to make here is there is no absolute right or wrong way to make an "educated" guess in predicting stats. People just need to concede this point and I am finished here with this thread.

Who in their right mind said there's an absolute way of predicting future performance??? There's several ways including wildly guessing, basing predictions on what you've seen on TV, or statistics regarding previous performance. The latter, while clearly not absolute, is the most reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT PART OF "NOBODY BELIEVES STATISTICS ARE 100% ACCURATE AND RELIABLE 100% OF THE TIME" DO YOU KEEP MISSING???

Holy cow...just because they're not exact and 100% reliable doesn't mean the useless. If the weatherman says there's a 80% chance of rain, are you going to grab an umbrella? Just because the weatherman says it's likely and it doesn't happen, does that discredit the entire field of meteorology? It seems as though you'd be more inclined to rely on the weatherman's Aunt Hilda who swears every time it's going to rain her sciatica flares up, so..."It's gonna rain today!"

It's exactly the same relationship. It's a prediction based on empirical data. When it's all said and done, more often than not, stats (and the National Weather Service...not TV personalities regurgitating a 90-second report that was handed to them just before the cameras were turned on) are proven to be reliable indicators of what's likely to open when applied to a large sample size.

What a terrific analogy.

On any randomly-selected Tuesday, crazy Aunt Hilda's forecast could turn out to be right, and the NWS's forecast could be wrong.

But over 365 days, the NWS is going to be right much more often than Hilda.

The "stat gurus" are the NWS, and you, OldFan, are crazy Aunt Hilda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What OldFan can't accept is that stats "project" what players will do in the future. They aren't written in concrete.

A player who hits 30 HR's every year is more likely to do it again than a player who only hits 15 HR's a year. Of course you have exceptions where the opposite is true, but over time, the stats have shown to be reliable methods to project the future.

OldFan wants to keep this thread going, just like he did over at the Sun, so he'll sprinkle in some insults and get warned for his personal attacks, and then back off when he gets called on it.

What's ironic is that OldFan is arguing that the past doesn't project the future when it comes to baseball, but it sure as hell does with him.

It never changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I am trying to make here is there is no absolute right or wrong way to make an "educated" guess in predicting stats. People just need to concede this point and I am finished here with this thread.

The key word there is "educated." If you're trying to predict how a player you've never seen before will do, looking at their stats as a measure of their past performance is likely the quickest way to work out an educated guess, as opposed to looking through scouting reports and going over enough film to form an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...