Cubs fans message board

[rluzinski]

Is there less actual interesting discussion these days, or is it just drowned out by all the noise?

 

I doubt there was less interesting discussion, as the userbase was only a fraction of what it is today. It's the ratio of good to bad has just drastically changed, IMO.

Rolling with the site's growth is the biggest challenge we've faced to date. We've implemented more rigid rules, and made it more challenging to apply for access (you now have to fill out an application, where we expect something more than "YOST BLOWZ! LET ME IN!". We've added a slew of moderators as well, as the sheer volume of posting has become overwhelming to moderate. I really, really feel that changes need to be made within the userbase. I'd prefer that it would be communicating to users what our expectations are, but obviously removing users is an option on the table.

 

You guys do a great job. I know I wouldn't want your job. My beef has never been with the moderating here. Heck, I've gotten my wrists slapped a few times and I deserved it every time. Maybe I just need to grow a thicker skin.

[wisportswriter]

This is a friendly reminder to not simply post "I agree with that poster" and nothing more because it doesn't add to the discussion, and if everyone did that... well, you know.

This is an ironic post in a thread in which a visitor comments, the way I took it, on the over-moderation of this board.

Maybe I misinterpreted his comment and in doing so leaked my own feelings. Oh, well. Either way.

 

And Russ, lest we forget, fan is short for fanatic. These days, the inmates run the asylum.

As I'm sure you know, it's far more toned down here than it is other places on the internets.

 

[And That]

This is an ironic post in a thread in which a visitor comments, the way I took it, on the over-moderation of this board.

I agree.

[GAME05]

i'm totally fine with the "over-moderation" of the board. the biggest value to bf.net is its insiteful posters, and to be completely accepting of thoughtless comments dilutes what made the product good in the first place. it'll mean people get angry and whine, but it's not like we absolutely have to be a democracy here.

 

I don't know if we still have this feature or not, but I remember there used to be a character minimum for every post (usually something like 6 or 7). If the biggest quibble is the short post, could we do something like make the character minimum 50? I don't know how limited you are with what Yuku has available.

[rluzinski]

Yes, as fans, we allow ourselves to create and cultivate an irrational emotional attatchment to a sports team. Their success is our success. Their failures can ruin an evening. I don't see how being a fan of a team and being able to objectively discuss topics about that team is mutually exclusive, though. Sure, we all have our biases. None of us can ever be 100% objective about anything. But if you've called for half the team to be DFA'd by August, you probably aren't even trying to think rationaly.

 

The way I see it, the vent thread and (to a lesser degree) the IGT are there to let you express yourself emotionally about your beloved team. But when people are trying engage in thoughtful discussions on a particular topic, adding a one line post about some player being "garbage" is adding nothing to the conversation.

[cubfan1126]

Since it has stirred a bit of commentary, I will explain the meaning of "ultra conservative."

 

1) No Polls

2) No images in signatures

3) The eliminating of a text in my signature which used the 7th of George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television." (even though that word can now be used on television)

 

Let me also point out that the mods/admins here do a great job of combining threads, updating thread titles as appropriate, and stopping things from getting out of hand. I did not intend to say that the board is over-moderated; it's not.

[GAME05]

to me, it just seems impossible to have things both ways, to want BF to grow, but also get only thoughtful, well-reasoned posts. I completely agree with what Russ said, but he's still talking about reason, logic and insightfulness, and that's generally run contrary to what the internet is all about.

I also don't really think the Vent Thread et. al really solves anything. it's not like people have a quotient of one-liners to use up and then get back to thought-out posts on the other threads. People are what they are--one-line posters or not (generally speaking).

it's not a suggestion, but i'm almost wondering if this issue was blown up beyond what it is now (do you all see this as a minor problem or a major one going forward?), that we might end up having an invitation-only thread/s for exemplary posters, or even further than that, a separate, exclusive website. but that's just me not seeing an easy solution to the current matter--i can't think if i've ever read the rules and regulations of this site all that closely, but i just try not to use cuss words or insult people as a matter of course.

[TooLiveBrew]

I don't see how being a fan of a team and being able to objectively discuss topics about that team is mutually exclusive, though.

 

This, to me, is where the gulf has appeared to become wider with the influx of new members prior to & during this season. Now, I'm basically a johnny-come-lately, as I joined after the 2006 regular season (iirc), so I certainly am not claiming some hallowed status here. I think the vast majority of the problems that arise in discussions (would saying 90+% be exaggerting?) are from people being unable to separate their emotions from their 'analysis'.

 

People sometimes appear to take personal offense if a player is called 'playing over his head'/'lucky'... or if there's a projection that ends up being surpassed, some seem to take a personal crusade to blabber, 'What do you statheads have to say now?'... when all that 'stat-heads' try to do is take the most reasonable approach plausible. I think some see being critical of a player while his results are red-hot (Braun, for example), or being supportive of a player when he's struggling (Weeks) is just wild disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

 

to me, it just seems impossible to have things both ways, to want BF to grow, but also get only thoughtful, well-reasoned posts.

 

Great point, GAME. I fully agree. This goes to what Brian said about the 'policing' needing to be done be the individual posters themselves. One big example I can think of is the Vent Thread, which I know is an unpopular thing to point out. "Vent Thread" is certainly a place where people can & should go to get stuff off their chests, but at times it just turns into the 'Unfounded piss & moan thread'

 

I personally think there is a balance to be struck between setiment & logic when 'venting', but many posters (oftentimes newer ones) just want to go in there & shout which player pisses them off the most, sometimes based on just one or two plays/outcomes. That's fine in a sense, because god knows it's brutal to watch sometimes, but the vents frequently (seemingly) aren't really fair... just someone saying how much he/she hates Player X... many times intentionally ignoring the positive things said player brings to the table, or with unrealistic expectations like performance relative to defensive position & peers.

[chuckiehacks]

I've seen the change in the quality of posts, but I've just changed the way I use the board. I've been around for years, but as my post count shows, I don't post that often. I enjoy the analysis and the well-thought out opinions of the team, and I know I can get that from a relatively small group of regular posters. Thus, when I see their posts I generally pay closer attention. Likewise, there are some threads (and posters) that I generally ignore, mostly the Yost and Vent threads. I know what's in there, and its generally not the type of discussion I'm seeking. That's not to say there is not a place for that here, quite the opposite.

 

It does get frustrating when that venting flows to other threads, but the mods here do a great job of preventing that for the most part.

 

I came here from the JS boards, so this is still head and shoulders above that cesspool.

[TheCrew07]

People sometimes appear to take personal offense if a player is called 'playing over his head'/'lucky'... or if there's a projection that ends up being surpassed, some seem to take a personal crusade to blabber, 'What do you statheads have to say now?'... when all that 'stat-heads' try to do is take the most reasonable approach plausible.

 

I agree with what you're saying TLB about people over reacting, but it goes both ways. Statheads generally are not willing to except that a projection isn't a "fact", it has nothing to do with a player's true talent level. I think I come out on the board as an anti-stat guy, when that's not the case, I just don't think the game is that black and white. If someone asks "what to do you see?" about a player, how many times is a stastical argument thrown out there when an observation is asked for in the original post? What's plausible to one person, certainly doesn't necessarily make it so for another. We aren't dealing with facts here, we're dealing with perceptions and opinions about educated guesses. That's why I never drop a projection into an argument, I'll use historical statistics (which are actually facts) to make a point, but a projection doesn't have anything to do with what the player will actually do in a given year, or more specifically, in a single AB.

 

While a projection is based on a mathematical premise, the result is simply a hypthesis, it's an educated guess based on historical data for a full season's worth of appearance or ABs. Applying scientific methods doesn't make something scientific... for example I troubleshoot computers every day, and I've had so much physics/chemistry between highschool and college (I was a double engineering major) that I can't help but follow scientic method. However, that hardly makes my work scientific in nature, my background just provides a model for my behavior. Isn't that what a projection really is? Just a model for how a given player's season should go? Furthermore, I haven't been presented with a single projection system that can accurately predict the outcome of a single AB, and games are won and lost on those results. The "statistical noise" isn't really noise, it's the nuances in the game that are difference between winning and losing.

 

The whole "luck" thing really doesn't have anything to do with being lucky, like BABIP for example. The harder you hit the ball, the more likely you are to get a hit... just like when a pitcher has a poor BABIP it isn't because they were unlucky, it's because they missed their spots up in the zone. Are there instances where a ball was crushed right at someone for an out, or a bleeder falls in for a hit? Absolutely. However trying to sell me that Weeks is unlucky because he would hit one ball hard while popping up another and striking out twice is not going to going to get anyone very far. However, if a player hits 4 line drives for outs then I'd agree that he's unlucky that day. That hasn't been the case with Ricky, he hasn't been hitting laser beams all over the field. He'll have a game or 2 where he does, but I don't think it's fair to quantify his season that way. Simply put very few players can hit a pitcher's pitch and get a basehit, the odds are all with the pitcher and the defense... the players I've seen do it the most are Vlad and Braun... location and pitch selection are everything in baseball. The problem I think lies in the fact that if you aren't watching the game and see where the catcher sets up, you have no way quantify the result of the pitch. So when you're doing analysis after the fact, especially stat based, you're doing analysis with incomplete and innaccurate information. While the result is the most important factor to consider, the intent is also a major factor in the outcome.

 

To me, the single most important factor for any player is confidence, it doesn't matter what level of sport an athlete participates in, confidence is key... I've watched an insane amount of sports in my 33 years and I'm unable to come up with a single instance where someone did something great in a sporting event by accident. For example what's the biggest difference between Braun and Weeks? Is it pitch recognition like some people close to me have suggested, hand eye coordination, or is it simply confidence? I'm not sure from a distance, but I bet the coaching staff knows, if not they have no business being coaches. As a football coach the 2 toughest things to teach are confidence and toughness, and while I can improve a kid somewhat over time, he really has to find it on his own or he's not going to be successful. I've had the advantage of being around sports my entire life, listening to hall of fame coaches, listening to professional players, and what I've learned in my personal experiences over the years that I truly believe the most important edge in sports is the mental edge. What I mean is that no one throws up a last second shot thinking they have no chance to make it and actually have it go in. I've been fortunate to make a bunch of half court or greater shots in my lifetime and I never thought to myself "I'm going to throw up it up there and see what happens". I was concentrating on putting the ball on the rim.... I've missed way more than I've made, but the margin for error is so small the shots are simply low percentage and very few are going to go in. Since there's no way to quanitfy or measure confidence, I take projections and metrics with a grain of salt, especially VORP. I've said many times, but I'll say it again, if statistical analysis increases any given fan's interest in the game it's a very good thing. However it's not the end all, be all of sports... it's just another way of looking at, understanding, and enjoying the game. James seems to be experiencing a backlash as he continually says "more research needs to be done". I've seen people on this board claim that he's a has been and stastical analysis has passed him bye... I don't think that's the case, I think the more time you spend with players and the closer you are the to the game, the more you realize how difficult it is to accurately measure the outcomes of given events.

 

Don't get me wrong, I find some of the work being done fascinating, and I've taken some saber principles and applied to them to the grading system I use for my football players. Sabermetrics has value, but it's just that I don't view it gospel, so I'm going to remain skeptical until proven otherwise. I've been around enough that I'll make a statiscal argument when I need to, but I can definately see both sides of this issue.

[Fatter than Joey]

James seems to be experiencing a backlash as he continually says "more research needs to be done". I've seen people on this board claim that he's a has been and statistical analysis has passed him bye...

 

I dont know that people here claim this -- James is still as smart and witty as he ever was, I think people are just saying that James isn't aware of all the stuff that is produced these days.

 

From a pure mathematical perspective, it's not as if James would be blown away by VORP or OPS+, or any statistical methodology, it's just that his finger is not on the pulse perhaps.

[rluzinski]

That's why I never drop a projection into an argument, I'll use historical statistics (which are actually facts) to make a point, but a projection doesn't have anything to do with what the player will actually do in a given year, or more specifically, in a single AB.

 

A great example of what I'm up against.

 

What the do you think projections are based on? You obviously have no idea. Good projections just know how to properly handle the sample error associated with seasonal and career stats. Do you? People see the word 'projection' and think they are based on some crazy, out-there methodology. Super computer buzzing away, trying to quantify grit and confidence. Coming up with the perfect model for every player's performance. Not even close.

 

You don't know how projections are constructed but you are still confident enough in your position to make the statement, "but a projection doesn't have anything to do with what the player will actually do in a given year". Past success tells us nothing about future success. I don't think you agree with that statement, which makes your strenuous object to projections all the more ridiculous.

 

And no one can predict 1 AB, so talk about a straw man argument. That's like trying to predict the flip of a single coin and then some. Even if players WERE robots, you couldn't predict the outcome of an AB. There would just be probabilities. Actual players have all those uncertainties and all the human onces as well. That's the concept you don't even begin to grasp.

 

Of course, we've already had this conversation. Same old, same old. Crew isn't going to try and learn anything more about the subject and he isn't going to chance his mind. No point in even discussing it.

 

Waste of time.

[hawing]

Speaking as a fan first (of the Brewers and of Brewerfan) - and as a staff member second - I'm glad to see this much interest shown in the site quality.

 

it seems like there are way too many extreme comments that are just way over the top, especially the Yost thread. Seems like just way too many angry posters lately, much like talk radio hosts and callers, instead of trying to learn while stating your own opinion, its many posts just complaining about a particular player, coach, or situation.

This comment echoes one of my concerns from the last year-plus. Some posters (a minority, I'd like to think, but certainly a vocal minority) seem to make an awful lot of posts whose most proper home is probably the vent thread.

 

I'm well aware of the emotional toll that 25+ years of waiting can take on a fanbase, and I'm (achingly) well aware of the emotional roller coaster the Brewers have taken us on since the start of the 2007 season. I'm also not saying that this forum should only be for heaping praise on the Brewers.

But I think posts that refer to Brewers players or staff as "garbage," "moronic," "you idiot" and the like have no place on a forum called Brewerfan. Comments like that are anything but constructive, and make the forum less enjoyable to read. It's frankly a letdown to attend a Brewers game - even a win - and come home to read a game thread that is full of picky gripes about how Ned was dumb or Suppan really sucked or Rickie will never amount to anything.

There are ways to show disapproval or disagreement without being insulting or just splattering your thoughts on a screen.

 

For a while last season, it felt to me as if the forum membership was divided, sometimes sharply, between people who assumed the Brewers were doomed (in some cases months, literally, before they actually fell out of first place) and people who didn't. Why did that happen? Why do I half expect it to happen again this year? With a few exceptions, we're all here because we like the Brewers. We're on the same side!

 

I don't know how to resolve this, and I can assure you that staff and moderators have gone over this issue amongst ourselves more than once.

 

I think that if you make posters observe for a while (like I did years ago when I joined) before you post, they will know that this is not the ESPN message board. Another benefit would be that it would keep away trolls who would want to post right away and would not be willing to wait.

Wallus' suggestion is one we have pondered (among other ideas). A big change we implemented during the 07-08 offseason was to request more of a statement from people applying for membership. This was after we noticed a correlation between posters with a membership statement such as "can I post or what?" or "give TurnBLOW a one way ticket outta town!" and members who flamed out quickly, sometimes from the very first post.

 

Our goal is not for this screening to be elitist, though we know some would-be applicants (and maybe some of you already here) perceive it in that very way. I think our forum occupies a very particular niche, which is not a good match for everyone - for example, your Brewers love may be pure and deep, but if you can't post without cussing or insults, Brewerfan is not the place for you - and when we steer unlikely matches away, we do so as much for those applicants as for the existing membership.

As Brian said earlier, we have worked harder to make site expectations known to all, but for the most part the success of the forum lies in the effort of each member.

 

I hope to see this discussion continue. It's much more interesting than talking about message boards for Cubs fans. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[logan82]

But I think posts that refer to Brewers players or staff as "garbage," "moronic," "you idiot" and the like have no place on a forum called Brewerfan.

 

That was one of my complaints in the Yost thread a few weeks back. I think you have a better chance being taken seriously if you can refrain from name calling. I know when I see somebody post something similar I find it much harder to just dismiss the post as an overemotional vent. As of right now sort of burned out on BF.net because of all the sifting through threads that has to be done to get to the small percentage of usefull insight.

[TheCrew07]

And no one can predict 1 AB, so talk about a straw man argument. That's like trying to predict the flip of a single coin and then some. Even if players WERE robots, you couldn't predict the outcome of an AB. There would just be probabilities. Actual players have all those uncertainties and all the human onces as well. That's the concept you don't even begin to grasp.

 

Of course, we've already had this conversation. Same old, same old. Crew isn't going to try and learn anything more about the subject and he isn't going to chance his mind. No point in even discussing it.

 

Waste of time.

Straw man arguement because I don't agree? That's typical of you... someone posts a contrary opinion and you get snippy over nothing. I post about the nuances of the game, yet I don't grasp the concept of human error? How about you actually take some time for once and consider what I'm trying to say, instead of dismissing it off the cuff because you think the concepts are out of my reach. The math isn't beyond me, the concepts aren't beyond me, you've never taken the time to consider/accept the simple point that while projections are based on facts, they are not facts in themselves, yet you continually present them like they are. They are an educated guess, nothing more, it's that simple. It doesn't matter how good the projection, how many millions of times you run the simulations, and the end of the day it's just an educated guess about how a player will perform over X number of games.

 

A great example of this is the Cameron thread. FTJ made it clear that he didn't base his opinions on Cameron's production on any projection, rather that he thought Cameron's numbers would jump up more in line with his away splits from SD. A very simple concept, yet 40 posts later people are still telling him how wrong he is because he didn't base his opinion off of a projection. That's the whole problem people specifically ignore... It's great that you and many others are into statistical analysis, I enjoy most of your work, and I take the time to read your posts even though I don't necessarily agree with your angle. However you go off deep end if someone doesn't use the Metric that you approve of or base their opinion off of a projection. Heaven forbid they use ERA to point out how bad a pitcher has been over his last 5 starts... what doesn't ERA tell you for that sample of games that FIP, ERA+, or any other metric will? He's been poor... regression to the mean has nothing to do with how bad someone has been playing, yet that's the standard response. It may very well be an indicator of future success or lack there of, but the games have already been played and someone is trying to make a statement about that finite set of games. In some discussions sample size is irrelevant, because the size of the sample is the point of the discussion. I doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are going to be peaks and valleys in performance over 162 games. Do I get tired of the "this player sucks" comments? Ya sometimes I do, especially when it's a knee jerk reaction to a single game. However there's little point in discussing the current season at all if people aren't able to make observations based on small samples.

 

My point is, and always has been that just because people choose to look at baseball in a different way than you doesn't mean their opinions are flawed, invalid, or unworthy of your time. Like I said, the closer you are the game, the more you believe in the concepts that aren't easily quantified. I've never been overly self confident, so I guess I've always been willing to learn, and I steal little bits from every source and eventually end up with my own point of view. I believe that talent is relative from year to year, it's always in motion... somtimes players improve, sometimes they don't... talent can change from play to play in some cases. I've seen the most amazing plays made by the least athletic player and I've seen the most talent player on the team get worked all game long. How horrible does Braun look striking out on 3 pitches out of the zone, only to come to back against the same pitcher and crank one out of the park? That's the beauty of the game for me, the unpredictable nature of every single AB. The simple truth is that until you get out there and coach at a level where winning matters and care about passionately about the game and kids, you'll probably never believe in or understand what I'm talking about. I understand I'm nobody to you, and you disregard pretty much everything I say because it doesn't jive with your perception of baseball. That's fine, I'm certainly not perfect, I have as many if not more flaws than most, the difference is that I don't hold myself over the rest the fanbase... the point of the site is to be part of a community that passionately and intelligently discusses our team, the Brewers. Believing in Sabermetrics is not a prerequisite of membership to the site, and I believe it's entirely possible to have intelligent conversation that's devoid of advanced stats. If people care enough to understand what you're talking about they'll google the stats, find the websites, and do the research just like I did. It's not anyone's job to force statistical analysis down everyone's throat, nor should it be, because every fan is going to be into a different aspect of the team and the game.

 

If you wish to discuss this further I'd rather we did it in PMs, there's no reason to further derail a quality thread like this with petty bickering.

[rluzinski]

It doesn't matter how good the projection, how many millions of times you run the simulations, and the end of the day it's just an educated guess about how a player will perform over X number of games.

 

Exactly. An educated guess. Better than someone just looking at last years or this year's stats. Better than just pulling a number out of nowhere. projections certainly do no begin to account for every variable. No disagreement there.

 

A great example of this is the Cameron thread. FTJ made it clear that he didn't base his opinions on Cameron's production on any projection, rather that he thought Cameron's numbers would jump up more in line with his away splits from SD. A very simple concept, yet 40 posts later people are still telling him how wrong he is because he didn't base his opinion off of a projection. That's the whole problem people specifically ignore...

 

The average fans might ignore park factors but most projection systems try to at least consider them. FTJ was 100% correct for pointing out that Cameron played in a pitcher's park:

 

http://gosu02.tripod.com/id103.html

 

It may very well be an indicator of future success or lack there of, but the games have already been played and someone is trying to make a statement about that finite set of games.

 

I certainly have no objections to doing that. I do it as well. It's when someone tries to go from observation to projection that you will see people begin to question their conclusions. Rightly so.

 

The simple truth is that until you get out there and coach at a level where winning matters and care about passionately about the game and kids, you'll probably never believe in or understand what I'm talking about.

 

I played highschool football, so don't suggest I can't appreciate the human element of the game. I don't underestimate what my head coach brought to the table in terms of motivation and confidence. Tech pride!

 

Of course, I was playing against other 17 and 18 year olds. Some of those kids were out there because Dad told them to be. If I cared more than them, I had a tangible advantage over them in the 4th quarter, when fatigue began setting in. But that was football being played by teenagers. Highschool football and professional baseball are whole other worlds. I don't really see much of a comparison, personally.

 

If people care enough to understand what you're talking about they'll google the stats, find the websites, and do the research just like I did.

 

Like I said, if you are OK with eyeballing career stats to get the sense of a player's talents than you are OK with at least some projection systems. I've provided this link many times before:

 

http://www.tangotiger.net/marcel/

 

Have you taken the time to research that?

 

It's not anyone's job to force statistical analysis down everyone's throat, nor should it be

 

If you are going to continue to reject any attempts to use projections in any way, I'm going to continue to point out the flaws in your arguments against them. And the wheels keep turning...

[lukevan]

It may very well be an indicator of future success or lack there of, but the games have already been played and someone is trying to make a statement about that finite set of games. In some discussions sample size is irrelevant, because the size of the sample is the point of the discussion. I doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are going to be peaks and valleys in performance over 162 games.

 

This is the disconnect. People normally don't talk about past performance as just that, past performance. It's usually "player A has been terrible, so how could you think they will ever be any good, bench/DFA him!" There are years and years of statistics that show the wild fluctuation in player production from year to year, due to simple statistical selection, the luck inherent in where a baseball goes when it's hit and player improvement/regression.

 

Sometimes projections don't mirror what actually happens, but of course there's no way it's possible to be exactly right. Sometimes a player finally "gets it" and improves, sometimes they produce less due to injury or other factors. Of course sometimes, projections nail reality, such as the White Sox in 2007 and the Tampa Bay Rays of 2008.

[TooLiveBrew]

Like I said, if you are OK with eyeballing career stats to get the sense of a player's talents than you are OK with at least some projection systems.

 

Crew07, as I read your post(s), I thought that a lot of stuff you were describing/specifying lined up with projections. I personally don't even pretend to know how to calculate them or how to weigh certain stats in doing so. What's useful about projections *to me* is that it gives the fan/observer a sort of 'target range' on what to expect. That's all I can ask in a game as random as baseball.

[TheCrew07]

Once again, yes I've educated myself on marcel... hence the "how many millions of times you run a simulation" comment.

 

I wasn't talking about coaching football, I was actually talking about any sport. It's an eye opening experience to try to impart wisdom and make someone a better player, at least in my case it gives a greater appreciation for athletics of any kind. It's the difference between actually getting dirty and building something as opposed to drafting a set of a plans as engineer, it always looks easier on paper.

 

I've never said projections don't have a place, in fact I've repeatedly said that my only problem with projections with they way they are used... someone is presenting them as fact, as representation of true talent. That's a very slippery slope to me... Just because player X has a better projection than player Y doesn't mean that player X is in fact the best choice for the team or the situation. Or that player Xhas a better VORP than Y player that he's a better baseball player. While it's true what marcel projects, or VORP says about the players, neither is necessarily the truth when it comes to the players or a given situation. I used pitch location as an example... a guy who's missing his spots by 18 inches just doesn't have good stuff that day, and probably isn't going to pitch very well, you can call it statistical noise if you want, but to me that's an oversimplification of the outcome of that particular game or AB. Again I just don't think sports are that black and white, I believe the games are more artistic in nature than advanced metrics give them credit for, there isn't much black/white in any sport, and as you agreed with me on it's impossible to measure the human element. Teams in any sport aren't trying to assemble an automobile with replaceable parts, they are trying to paint the Sistine Chapel and accomplish something truly memorable for one moment in time.

[TooLiveBrew]

someone is presenting them as fact, as representation of true talent.

 

Where do you encounter this?

[Brian the Automator]

I think there's a real communication disconnect here. There are people heavy into stats and therefore projections who trust in the reliability of large sample sizes over time to make predictions. While on the other hand, you have the smallest atomic level of baseball, a pitch, where anything can happen. It's like the disconnect between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and that's what makes baseball awesome. Over a large sample size, stats are usually a reliable representation of what happened. Over a few at-bats, stats are meaningless.

 

I don't think you'll find any stat person here who says "I've got this all figured out, now playing the games is just an academic exercise". Data is data, no matter if it's baseball, population growth, or farming. Those who want or need to predict things will weigh stats into the equation very heavily... Those who choose to have an emotional connection to the game will favor other things. Neither of them are wrong, or stupid.

[TheCrew07]

Crew07, as I read your post(s), I thought that a lot of stuff you were describing/specifying lined up with projections. I personally don't even pretend to know how to calculate them or how to weigh certain stats in doing so. What's useful about projections *to me* is that it gives the fan/observer a sort of 'target range' on what to expect. That's all I can ask in a game as random as baseball.

I agree with that as well, but to my point about FTJ, why is his educated guess a worse projection because it wasn't based on a projection system? It's simply a matter of taste, prefference, persepctive, point of view... whatever. In the grand scheme it's no better or no worse. In the same sense that quite often BA or OBP will give the exact same information as OPS+. I have no statistical preferrence, I'll go with the flow of the original poster, the meaning of the post is more important to me personally than what statistic was chosen. Truth be told I prefer more advanced stats, but I'm not going to crack on someone because they choose to use BA or OBP instead of OPS+ for a given player.

 

For people that aren't overly net savvy or educated in advanced statistics it's easier for them to use and formulate their opinions around what they know and understand. If people want to educate themselves as they spend more time here then great, if not that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a place in this community. I still remember the first time I saw OPS and thought "what the hell is that?", that's the great thing about this site, there's a wealth of information and opportunity to gain a more in depth knowledge of baseball if one so chooses. The catch is that people have to make that choice, and in most cases I think all of are going to make own choices at our own pace.

edit. TLB to your most recent point, it happens all the time... side by side comparisons of projections with a definitive answer who the better player is based on the projection.

 

Brian said exactly what I've been trying to say, only better.

[Fatter than Joey]

I agree with that as well, but to my point about FTJ, why is his educated guess a worse projection because it wasn't based on a projection system?

 

because I drink the cheap hooch.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Brian the Automator wrote:

 

Those who want or need to predict things will weigh stats into the equation very heavily... Those who choose to have an emotional connection to the game will favor other things. Neither of them are wrong, or stupid.

 

Don't take this as any huge disagreement or anything -- the general point of BtA's post is spot-on in my opinion -- but I can assure you that being a SABR dork in no way precludes you from having an emotional connection to the game. So could anyone who was carefully observing my alcohol consumption patterns Monday through Thursday last week.

 

With respect to the question of projections presented as true talent estimations, I've done this several times, because that's what they are. Note that I say "estimations". What non-SABR fans don't realize is that they do the same thing all the time. When someone says, for example, "J.J. Hardy is hitting .000 over his last 20-whatever ABs -- bench him!" they are looking at a statistical description of the past, applying present tense language ("is hitting"), and making an argument that a decision should be made with a view of likely near-term future results. To make this argument, s/he necessarily must believe that J.J. Hardy's present true-talent hitting ability (if only for the near-future) is better described by those 20 ABs than by (for example) a 3-2-1 weighted amalgam of Hardy's last three seasons, adjusted for age and regressed toward the league average hitter.

 

But wait -- Ned didn't bench him and he went 2-5. Then Ned benched him. Now what? Is Hardy still cold? Is this the beginning of a hot streak? On my side of the fence, it was a fool's errand to try to identify Hardy as "currently" hot or cold in the first place. None of us would deny that streaks happen -- but I would deny that statistical descriptions of recent streaky performance are of any use in predicting future performance.

 

Why things get a bit tense around here in-season on this score is no great mystery. On any given day, the 4-5 most active threads are usually the ones which were either started or resurrected based on yesterday's results, or last week's, or at most the last month's. For fear that my voice will otherwise be drowned out by the thunderous cacophany of "Weeks is a bum!" and "Start Kapler!" posts, I know I find it awfully tempting to dig in a bit more fiercely than is perhaps called-for. I really try not to hurt anybody's feelings, and I'm quick to apologize if I recognize I've stepped into smarmy jerksville, but it's really tough not to sometimes.

 

I don't really think anything can be done to rectify this situation -- for most fans, it seems the last few weeks are either all they really remember, or all that summons BtA's "emotional connection" for them. I think the best the site can do is try to keep the tone civil and semi-constructive, and I think the mods do an excellent job of at least trying their darndest to do that.

[rluzinski]

Anytime a fan looks at previous stats to take a guess at future expected performance, they are trying to do the same kind stuff projections do. Everyone uses projections! Many projection systems just use a more regimented and statistically sound methodolgy (no selective end points, adjust fo sample size, weigh more for more recent performances, etc...).

 

What comes out of any statistical projection is only an estimate of true talent based on previous performance. As I've said many times here, that's just the start, not the end., No one will ever know a players exact talent level at any given moment. You want to adjust his projection because he picked up a wicked slider in the off season, that's your right. I may not agree with your projection but it's your subjective call to do as you wish. If you are reasonable about it, adding more information should only help your statistical projection. The fans did a great job with their projections at tangotiger.net because they had the statistical projections and lots more informaion those projections didn't have.

 

Just don't say that projections tell us nothing because that's the same thing as saying that all the previous stats a player has accumulated tell us nothing. It's just a silly stance to take. If Counsell or Fielder is coming up to bat, I may not know what the exact outcome will be but I obviously know something about the situation. I don't think I can predict the exact outcome of a single AB, single game or even an entire season. The only people who make those kind of predictions are the blowhards on sports shows. I don't make predictions.

 

Out of that entire post, I bet I didn't say one thing that I haven't said before. I'm sure many of the old timers know to ignore these kind of posts from me. I hope never have to write any of this again.