The longer post above explained this, but I don't really believe you. You're probably using stats in there somewhere whether you know it or not, and you'd see that if you started trying to explain why you feel that way. (e.g. The Sox are better because they have better pitchers... based on what? Stats of some kind, I'd imagine.) That's why I said it feels like you are trying to avoid using the word "statistics" because you think it's all math-y or something... but if we're talking about something that happened on the field, they're in there. Either that, or it's nothing but pure faith, which is fine, too. It's just not very convincing when you're trying to be so adamant that there are these other "non-statistical" reasons why you want Team A to play Team B.
Holy fuck Capster. I try as hard as possible to have a reasonable conversation with you, but then you sit there and call me a fucking liar? Whatever. I know that Lester and Beckett or the Texas lineup inspire more fear in me than Verlander and whoever else in Detroit's rotation. Seriously, I can't recall a single other pitcher in Detroit's rotation off the top of my head. I certainly don't fear anyone in their lineup. I'm pretty sure Boston and Texas have lineups that I fear though. It's not because Beckett's ERA is whatever the fuck it is because I have no fucking clue what it is. It's that I know Josh Beckett is a good fucking pitcher who brings his best against the Yankees. Just STFU if all you're going to do is sit there and assume shit. Because when you assume, you make an ass out of yourself.
Easy, dude. First of all, I'm not saying you're lying about it. I'm saying that you don't even realize it's in there. Or maybe you do, but you don't see the connection (that's why I said "whether you know it or not"). And I'm not talking about knowing exactly what his ERA is, either. Look, you say you know Josh Beckett is a good pitcher who brings his best against the Yanks. How do you know that? The answer, I assume, is something along the lines of, "I watch the games and he doesn't give up runs," right? I mean, that's a pitcher's job. And Verlander is also good because doesn't give up runs. How do you know that? You're probably remembering the ESPN highlights or whatever. And he strikes out a lot of batters, too. And has some no-hitters. No exact numbers needed there. And you would say both of those guys are better than Mike Pelfrey because Pelfrey probably gives up more runs, right? Isn't that at least part of what goes into your "feeling" about who is better? Maybe you haven't really thought about because it's so obvious and seems like common sense. (And it is.) Again, exact numbers aren't needed. But you're still using information from what happened on the field. What else would you use? And that can be measured. Now what you do with that info starts to matter. Take this scenario: Who's better? Josh Beckett or Justin Verlander? Pick either name... but once you get past your choice, if you want to start trying to explain your choice, you're going to be using statistics. Maybe vague and inaccurate statistics... maybe holistic judgments (based on the underlying statistics), but you'll be using them all the same. Like when you count up which team has more players you "fear" (based on a vague statistical compilation from what you know about the players). Count them up, one, two, three, and you'll have Alio's Fear Metric. It's a statistic. Maybe not a very good one in predictive power, but it's a stat. That's all I'm saiyng. The stats are there, whether you know you're using them or not.
Bullshitting about baseball was a lot more fun before some squid would break out a goddamn algorithm and challenge every opinion. The advanced metrics can give an new perspective on looking at some deeply held opinions, and I'll concede that can be interesting. But it'd be nice if you nerds obtained the social skills to know when to give it a rest sometimes.
Whereas before, people would only challenge opinions with other opinions and then people would just shout their opinions at each other. It's the internet. People talk about stuff and the stuff you have to say is there forever and people have time to look stuff up. It's different than sitting across a table from someone in a bar.
No I get that. But I also get that Alio is going to give his opinions and they are often going to be hyperbolic if not downright manic. Its the way he is and there's nothing wrong with it and it isn't necessary for you to scold him about it.
*shrugs* I'm never trying to scold anyone about it. But I guess I take a different point of view as to how some posts should be treated. If it's during the game, and Cano hits a HR, and someone says, "That dude is worth $40 billion per year! Pay him tomorrow!" I'd take it with a grain of salt. If someone comes in the next day, though, with a page-long game analysis, I'd assume that they wanted their thoughts to be taken more seriously. You don't say. Are we talking about the New York Yankees? Of baseball fame? The things they come up with these days...
Thanks...I think. To put it in perspective, I don't have to quote Gallileo every time I talk about how the Earth travels around the Sun. I don't have to bring up Columbus every time I talk about sailing across an ocean. By the same token, I don't have to quote Justin Verlander's batting-average-against-with-runners-in-scoring-position-during-night-games-on-Tuesdays-after-eating-burritos-during-two-fers-on-Sunday to say he's probably the best damn pitcher in baseball right now.
Of course you don't. But let's say in response to that someone said, oh, I don't know... say... CC Sabathia is better because he pitched in more meaningful games in the AL East. Now you have a difference of opinion. One option is, "I disagree, good sir, but you are welcome to your opinion. They are both quite good and I would be happy to have either pitching on the team for which I root." And everyone could leave it at that. But if you're going to come to the table and have a discussion... if you're going to stand by your opinion and make definitive statements (some even using stats) like the ones below, why should you not be expected to back them up? I mean, what is the other option? Everyone should just smile and nod and agree with what you think just because you think it? Why can't it be discussed civilly? And then you go and say this... So you're doing more than stating an obvious "Earth goes round the sun" opinion/fact here. You're claiming something that is questionable, at best. And you're using it to form your opinions. Or maybe your opinions are shaping the way you care to gather information. Hell, if you just said, "I'd like HFA. It'd be nice to have." I'd say, "It sure would." "Yup." "Yup." But if you're going to try to pseudo-explain some reasoning behind it... why shouldn't that be discussed openly?
It makes it more fun if you don't focus on numbers and nothing else. I think there are too many devotees of SABR that refuse to acknowledge that scouting can be a reliable predictive tool. Teams signed players with just scouting for years and seemed to be able to get some pretty good guys. I just don't see why some seem so willing to completely throw it away just because something new came along.
Okay, so here's the thing, and I don't mean this to sound as dickish as it will, but there's no other way to state it. Who cares what you think? My statement is this: "I want the Yankees to have home-field advantage because I believe that sending Boston west to play Texas while we remain home against Detroit gives us the best chance of seeing the Yankees play the Phillies in the World Series." What can be inferred from that statement are the following: For whatever reason, I believe that Texas will win the West, Detroit will win the Central, and Boston will be the next best team. I also believe that the Phillies will beat any other NL team. I also believe that it's bad for both Boston and Texas to face each other for them, making it good for the Yankees who I believe will beat Detroit. It doesn't make a difference why I believe those things. When I say it, I'm not necessarily looking to analyze why. I'm simply saying it. Like I'll say right now that it looks like rain in NYC right now. I don't need to sit here and talk about how it appears that an incoming cold front is carrying moisture through the atmosphere and that it will likely couple with the hot air that was here to produce some bad weather. Because who fucking cares? The only question that matters is whether I remembered my umbrella today. (The answer is yes.) It doesn't need analyzation. It doesn't need 3 pages of discussion. I observed the fucking sky this morning, watched the morning news, and formed the opinion that carrying my umbrella was better for me than leaving it home. Does that mean it will rain on me when I leave work? Nope. Do I still feel I've given myself the best chance to achieve my goal of getting home relatively dry? Yup. Life isn't a science lab. Most people don't care about explaining every frigging thing that comes out of their mouths. Most people also don't care to hear the explanation. A simple "Oh, that's how you feel? That's nice." will suffice. (And so fulfills today's quota of hyperbolic manic ranting for Dierking's pleasure. :wink
But to borrow your phrase, "Who cares what you feel?" :smile: I mean, you're exactly right. In the real world, that's exactly how those conversations go. Because it's small talk. I'm sure we all have dozens of conversations like that every day. Message boards are kind of different. I mean, sure, we could all sit back and say, "Gee, nice weather today. Go Yanks!" And let's all leave it at that. What an illuminating place this would be. You don't have to explain anything. And none of this needs to be here, period. But if you're taking the time to post something, you think it's worth sharing with this entire corner of the internet. Otherwise, why post it in the first place? Pure narcissism? You asked me, "Who cares what you think?" Well, the same applies to you, right? If that's how we're judging things (and I'm not saying that's how it should be), then why should anyone care what you feel? Are your feelings worth knowing? Why post at all? When I post here, I like to have discussions. Actual back and forth, where people share ideas. It's not about explaining... it's about gaining understanding. That's what's interesting. To me, at least. If that's not interesting to you, if you just want to share how you feel with the world, get a Twitter account. And if you don't want to explain something, don't. I won't lose sleep. But don't get pissy and start dropping f-bombs just because you find you can't explain it or haven't thought it through. Just say, "Hey, man, it's just how I feel and I don't even care if it's right."
