Is Confidence In Winning A Barrier To Sucess?

[Old#5fan]

OldFan - we don't get what you're saying because it's non-sensical. You're confusion between statistics and science is a prime example of that. Stats described what happened in the past and can be used to describe what is likely to happen in the future.

You saw Frank Robinson and Brooks Robinson play - big deal. Does that prohibit you from having an opinion on Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and the type of players they were? Of course not - we have statistics that describe their greatness and their ability. Besides, how many games did you see them play? I've seen a lot of baseball in my time - and I'm not that much younger than you - but I'm not so arrogant to believe that my visual observation of the games I've seen is a substitute for wealth of information available to me about these players from the many more games that I HAVE NOT seen.

Look - Earl Weaver sat in a major league dug out for 18 years - and watched more baseball than you and I will ever see combined. And how did he decide who to play and who to pinch hit and who to match up with who? His famous 3 X 5 cards with statistical breakdowns of past performance that's how. He saw them play OldFan - yet he used the tools at his disposal to make the best decisions possible. And he was a great manager for it.

If he were active today I have no doubt he would make full use of the statistical arsenal now available - after all - he helped to pioneer its use.

So are you saying you understand baseball better than Earl Weaver? Are you saying Earl was some how deficient in his observational powers? It sure seems like you are.

How many times have you make a statement about how "clutch" someone was or about how someone seldom did this or often did that only to be proven completely wrong by statistics? Too numerous to count my friend.

Look - I'm with you on the hard math behind a lot of the statistics used by modern sabremetrics - I struggle with it myself. Heck - I scored slightly above retarded on the GRE's in math because I've never had a solid background in it. Nevertheless, I don't discount the utility of quantum physics simply because I struggle to understand even the basics of it.

If you don't want to take the time to learn the math behind the stats - that fine - and that's you're choice. If you don't want to take the time to learn from others on here that have - that's also your choice as well. Just don't act surprised when very few people take you seriously in these discussions.

I see your point and now realize how I seem inconsistent with my personal take on stats which is possibly what frustrates some here. I do of course agree with Weaver's tracking of hitters versus pitchers matchups. However, I don't think it is something that is an automatic decision either. Hargove used to drive me nuts when he would take out a pitcher (reliever usually0 who was looking unhittable when brought in from the pen and replace him with another guy who comes in and either can't throw strikes or doesn't have it. So I think it depends on the game situation. Say Jim Palmer is cruising along with a 1 run lead and has two out in the 8th with a man on second and Jim Rice is due up who has a lifetime average of over 400 versus Palmer and the next guy due up is Dwight Evans who has a lifetime 220 average. Of course if I am Weaver I walk Rice to pitch to Evans or whatever PH who may enter.

Where I don't find stats any use is predicting how many wins a team is going to get. The Pythagorean (sic) Theory of how many runs scored versus how many runs given up as a means of predicting a team's record I find to be useless. I also find the WAR or whatever they call it where they try to say a certain player adds so many wins to a team is not worth much either. I just find that the more complicated and obscure some of these methods are they just seem to be about the same as anyone who watches the games making a guess.

[ledzepp8]

Since Ledzepplin8 is thankfully on my ignore list and I only saw one of his derogatory (as usual) immature posts with zero substance to them accidently before logging in I will address this post to him:

READ THIS SLOWLY AND THINK ABOUT IT USING ALL THE BRAIN POWER

YOU CAN MUSTER SON-- The reason I know Frank Robinson was better than Vada Pinson is (unlike you) I SAW THE TWO OF THEM ACTUALLY PLAYING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. Unlike you, I can watch a game and easily spot the most talented players with out having to read a bunch of statistical gobblygook, which you don't need if you merely observe and know what the heck you are observing. Try watching a game and learning about it. Maybe even before you do that go watch a Little League Game and observe or read a book called Baseball 101.:laughlol: (I kid, I kid)!

Once again how do you know he was a better player? You don't unless you have something to measure their skills by. You know...stuff like stats. The same things(BA,RBIs,HRs)you just suported in your next post. You are all over the place in this thread because you have no idea what you are talking about. Most people would want to stop looking foolish.

[Old#5fan]

Once again how do you know he was a better player? You don't unless you have something to measure their skills by. You know...stuff like stats. The same things(BA,RBIs,HRs)you just suported in your next post. You are all over the place in this thread because you have no idea what you are talking about. Most people would want to stop looking foolish.

Yeah, you could never have seen either player and simply looked at their stats to see that Frank was better. Yet that wouldn't tell you how much of a leader Frank was and how he carried himself on the field. For example, he often was among the most players HBP because he crowded the plate daring the pitcher to brush him back. I cannot tell you how many times I saw him dusted off by a pitcher (knocked down) and he would subsequently hit a home run. You don't get the full picture only from stats.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You don't get the full picture only from stats.

Boiling the whole argument down to something that isn't being argued is why you epically fail and why no one actually listens to what you say other than to mock it.

[ledzepp8]

Yeah, you could never have seen either player and simply looked at their stats to see that Frank was better. Yet that wouldn't tell you how much of a leader Frank was and how he carried himself on the field. For example, he often was among the most players HBP because he crowded the plate daring the pitcher to brush him back. I cannot tell you how many times I saw him dusted off by a pitcher (knocked down) and he would subsequently hit a home run. You don't get the full picture only from stats.

None of what you posted has anything to do with what makes someone a better player and none of it has anything to do with what I posted. I am now dumber for having read it.

Oh and please show me a post of mine in this thread that has been immature and derrogatory. You were the one who was questioning my intelligence in the post I quoted.

[Old#5fan]

None of what you posted has anything to do with what makes someone a better player and none of it has anything to do with what I posted. I am now dumber for having read it.

Oh and please show me a post of mine in this thread that has been immature and derrogatory. You were the one who was questioning my intelligence in the post I quoted.

"Yeah I was conflicted as to whether or not I should make a similar joke. I decided to keep it clean. Oh and I doubt that this guy was ever close to being a Cum Laude...unless it was a school of like 20 students. I kid Old Fan...I kid."

You weren't kiddng, you meant every word of it. You want to bet that I didn't graduate Cum Laude from MSM in 1979? I will take your money.:laughlol:

[SilentJames]

You truly don't get what I am saying do you? I don't need all that sabermetric stuff to know what I am seeing. I saw that Frank Robinson was a hell of a player, same as Brooks. I now see that Adam Jones looks like he's going to be a top player. I don't need some b.s. statistical stuff to tell me the hypothetical range of performance, because most of the time its not any more accurate than an observation by someone who has followed the game and observed players anyway. In other words if you watch the games and pay attention you don't need some obscure statistical analysis to confirm what you see. Just the basic stuff is fine" BA RBI HRS. And those are just to track what a player has done as comparable to all past players.

BTW, I have seen the three legged bear video. It is pretty cool. I post on a Bigfoot site and they had it over there. There is a huge difference in what a bear looks like even on two legs from a BF. I think the Patterson Gimlin film is the real deal. I will stop now as this thread has gotten too far off topic already albeit very interesting discussion.

We get what you are saying, you're just wrong.

[Old#5fan]

We get what you are saying, you're just wrong.

Well, you sir are of course entitled to that opinion.

[ledzepp8]

"Yeah I was conflicted as to whether or not I should make a similar joke. I decided to keep it clean. Oh and I doubt that this guy was ever close to being a Cum Laude...unless it was a school of like 20 students. I kid Old Fan...I kid."

You weren't kiddng, you meant every word of it. You want to bet that I didn't graduate Cum Laude from MSM in 1979? I will take your money.:laughlol:

All I said was, considering your posting history and the asinine things you say on here, that I doubt you ever came anywhere close to Cum Laude. And of course now you're changing it up. First you said something like you were considered for it and now you're saying that you did in fact earn it.

Regardless, I fail to see how this opinion is immature or derogatory. But then again I'm just a young whippersnapper who didn't actually see Frank Robinson or Brooks Robinson or Curt Blefary play, so I can't actually know anything about the glory days of baseball.