Newer Poster Treatment

[sbrylski]

Obviously in response to the Dave Bush 4.00+ thread.

 

I've heard the label of "elitist" placed on this site, and I'm beginning to see why. As a group we could do a much better job of welcoming newer posters. Education of newer posters should be a goal, and rejecting them without trying to show them why they recieve flak here for their ideas or opinions is truly elitist.

 

Obviously having the same discussions over and over again can get very tiring, so it is somewhat understandable the stance many here would take in response to the thread referrenced above, but I don't think it excuses the behavior.

 

I mentioned in that thread of possibly creating something like a statistical tutorial for newer posters to be referenced to. Maybe that's unneccesary, but I do think we can do a much better job with our treatment of newer posters who do not share the same views and attitudes toward baseball as we do. A more diversified group of posters can make for much better discussions anyway, provided it is kept civil.

[Brian the Automator]

[ I've heard the label of "elitist" placed on this site, and I'm beginning to see why. As a group we could do a much better job of welcoming newer posters. Education of newer posters should be a goal, and rejecting them without trying to show them why they recieve flak here for their ideas or opinions is truly elitist. ]

 

I think people jumped on him a little early in that thread, but he burned bridges before when he said that he "only speaks the truth".

 

I agree, he should be given another chance despite whatever opinion he has.

[sbrylski]

I think people jumped on him a little early in that thread, but he burned bridges before when he said that he "only speaks the truth".

 

This is true, and TooLive pointed it out to me within that thread. His attitude wasn't the greatest either.

 

Still, we should always strive to be above that.

[Brian the Automator]

[ Still, we should always strive to be above that. ]

 

I agree.

[TooLiveBrew]

Agreed. I especially like sbryl's point that there should be somewhere to point the newbies when questions of stats, etc. arise

 

How 'bout some links to baseball-reference.com, thebaseballcube.com, fangraphs.com, etc.?

 

A "Stats Links" page?

 

I know I only discovered many of the baseball reference pages from BF.net, and they've done nothing but enhance my 'understanding' of the game!

[splitterpfj]

I'm glad this thread is here, I think it's easy for regulars here to get sarcastic with new people, or even to think they're joking when they ask a question we may find absurd.

 

Be careful though, the knowledge base at this site is outstanding, don't expect a guy in rookie ball to hit major league breaking stuff in his first post.

[billyhallfan]

When I first got here I got shot at left and right, now I think that I fit in, but I try to welcome anyone on here. It is unrealistic to expect new members to talk only about something that has never been said over the internet before.

[Big Reed]

unfortunately, I posted my comments in the other 4.00 ERA thread before realizing this thread existed. So now since this thread was created, I'll expand on my precvious comments.

 

I saw a lot of probelms / issues in that thread that angered me. Chiefly, because it's not the first time something like this has happened.

 

a new poster comes and posts something without doing any research. his viewpoint ticks a lot of established posters off. then they tell him off. and then rather than debating the subject, everybody gets defensive and starts talking about who pissed off who first. then the established posters say their comments were not name calling but rather sarcastic refeerences to TV stuff. Well how's a guy to know? In the middle of a word war, i don't flip on the comic central channel to make sure he's only being sarcastic. i don't watch SNL or South park or the Simpsons or any of that "funny" stuff. I spend my time watching the history channel and GSN. While you may think your comments were only being sarcastic and humorous, the person on the receiving end understood them to be name calling and belittling. and I have to agree with him as that's the way your comments came across. these funny sarcastic one liners are getting old really fast. and I'm speaking to more than one person. it's as if some people here have their own little clique and make inside jokes only they understand. and if you're not in the cilque, you have no idea what the joke is about, and you think the joke is on you.

 

a problem with the tutoring idea is that yes, it would be nice if you tried to teach the newby a few tutorials about stats. but what if the person doesn't want to learn stats? this is not about a person buying the new microsoft office and asking for help on how to use it. what if he /she just wants to be a fan? not an informed stats fan, but just a normal fan? can't we accept that without trying to change him into a rotissori geek? I thought if you wanted to debate stats, you should go to the stats forum. A lot of people go to college. Very few of them take stats or calculus courses. that doesn't mean the guy who took stats is smarter than the guy who didn't. it just means the guy who didn't take stats just didn't like stat courses. Are vets required to take stats courses? I doubt it, but vet students are one of the smartest students at college. please don't try to force a new poster to start visiting other baseball reference sites and develop an understanding of stats and other brewers trivia /history before allowing him to post. maybe you should do that before bestowing the person with moderator or all star status. We're not applying for a governemnet job here. We just want a place to vent our feelings about the brewers. i think it's great that many brewer posters know a lot about stats and brewer history, and baseball reference stuff. but please, don't try to force that knowledge on other posters. and please don't try to apply your standards to everyone who posts here. Very few posters could live up to those expectations.

 

When i come to this site, i go to the off subject forum, the trade proposal forum and the major league baseball forum. I don't come here to learn the new baseball stats. I don't come here to share my java programing knowledge or web site design experience. I come here as a fan. a brewers' fan.

 

Sometimes i think the established, informed posters forget that many of the posters here are not as informed as they are and do not wish to be . I would believe we have a lot of posters who are still in high school that have never taken a stats or algebra course and have no clue what you are trying to say. Sometimes your posts come accross as a person who's a highly educated jerk.

 

ted williams was a tremendous ball player. but he was a terrible coach and manger. Why? he held everyone to his standard. he thought if they only tried as hard as he tried, and if they only put forth the same effort he put forth, they would be just as good. ted williams was a terrible communicator. he didn't understand that not everyone wanted to or had the capacity to know and do as much as he could. I see that same problem here.

 

You want to make people know as much as you do so that they can speak on the same level as you. and so that you can debate on the same terms. Well, I for one don't have to time to watch 10 years of simpsons and SNL reruns or south park. I don't think their humor is funny either. I don't have time to get another degree in stats. I don't have time to design a spell checker for this site. rather than trying to educate the poster to come to your level of understanding of the game and its stats and financial implications, it time for the more informed poster to start toning down their act and start speaking to the level of the less informed / knowledgeable poster. Even when not name calling a poster, you come accross in your comments as talking down to the poster which is essentually the same thing and it immediately places the new poster on the defensive..

 

perhaps it's time for the more informed stats geeks to take a course in human communications. the first rule is to know your audience! rather than being the Que continium, how about coming back down to earth, and start coversing with other brewers fans as if they were your friend?

 

I'm an Eagle Scout. but I don't claim to be the greatest hiker or camper. i don't claim to know every bird or tree variety that exists. I don't know how to tie 50 knots and I'm afraid of heights and don't like wall climbing. there are a lot of scouting stuff i don't like and can't do. but, the fact remains, the Boy Scouts of America decided I was worthy of being an Eagle Scout. As a Cub Scout and boy Scout leader, I don't try to force upon my boys the importance of them becoming an Eagle Scout. I don't try to force on them my scouting knowledge or experience. I also don't brag about being an Eagle Scout to their parents. if my boys want to become an Eagle Scout, first they have to become a tenderfoot. I'd give anything of myself for my scouts. if they want to quit and join basketball and little leagues, i'm not going to scold them or tell them they're missing out. I' m also not going to give them an ultimatum or try to force my opinions on them. it's their life. What i try to do is instill the values and morals of scouting. a scout is coeurteous. a scout is friendly. a scout is kind. a scout is helpful. etc. if you can apply the principles of scouting into your life, then i as a scout leader have done my job.

 

as I said before, i thought this was a fan forum. if you want the fans to be more informed, then I suggest you change the title of the forum. yahoo has many groups/forums people can join. Some have entry comments requiring a poster to write something before being granted admittance. if that's what you want to do. then so be it. if all you want are posters who are informed, it would be very easy to establish membership and posting requirements. I think there are many people with enough time on their hands that could develop a test for people to take prior to being allowed to post.

 

is that what you really want? because that's the direction you are headed.

 

I don't write long posts like this very often anymore. When I do, it's for a reason. While you may not agree with my viewpoints, I hope you will at least realize how some of your viewpoints and comments are coming across to people like me. I loved stats as a college course. but I hate a fan site where every other word is a stat and where conclusions can only be drawn by using stats.

 

I hope some of you can learn something from this post. I appoligize for it's length and also apoligize for not including any stats to back up my main points.

 

I'm not calling out any one person. we all say things we are regretful for later- including myself.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

I mentioned in that thread of possibly creating something like a statistical tutorial for newer posters to be referenced to

---

 

SB,

 

I posted this in the 4.00+ ERa thread but think it should apply here.

 

I don?t think we need to force new posters into a certain way of thinking. We don?t want all posters to be similar thinking robots that only espouse WHIP, VROP, etc. That wouldn't lead to much discussion would it?

 

It doesn?t take a working knowledge of stats to post here?heck it doesn?t even take agreeing with the statistical leaning of many of the stat-heads here. All it takes is basic decency, the ability to type and the ability to use somewhat acceptable grammar and language.

 

I am skeptical of many of the stats you guys throw around and their predictive power and I am able to be a contributing member that can have civil discussions (for the most part).

 

We don?t all have to agree/ think the same way?we do have to treat each others? ideas with basic human respect.

[homer]

I remember the first time I posted that Sexson wasn't clutch, Brian calmly pointed out his stats in close/late and with runners in scoring postition.I took my lumps and changed my opinion of Richie. As long as people are treated calmly and rationally, they will probably change their minds. It's when you force it down their throats that they feel threatened. I wish the mods would crack down a little harder on the snide remarks that regulars make. That would help alleviate this.

[sbrylski]

I don?t think we need to force new posters into a certain way of thinking. We don?t want all posters to be similar thinking robots that only espouse WHIP, VROP, etc. That wouldn't lead to much discussion would it?

 

No, no, I agree. That's why I said "A more diversified group of posters can make for much better discussions anyway, provided it is kept civil" in the original post.

 

But we as a group throw around a lot of stats in discussions. People who don't at least understand where these stats are coming from won't be able to fit into the discussions. And I'm not even talking about VORP and FIP, I'm just talking about the basic use of statistics.

 

It's the "I watch games" argument that we got in the 4.00 ERA thread that really irks me. Its the basic understanding that stats are a record of every thing that happens, not just a select few preformances.

 

I was actually playing the game of Risk a few weeks ago with some friends, and one of them could not understand that the odds of me rolling a 6 were the same as any other number, despite the fact that I had just rolled consecutive 6's. (I won, btw.) There are plenty of baseball fans that simply have zero exposure to stats, odds, and numbers.

 

Its like one person verbally arguing in English and the other one using Spanish. How can I defend myself if he doesn't speak my language, and vice versa?

 

a problem with the tutoring idea is that yes, it would be nice if you tried to teach the newby a few tutorials about stats. but what if the person doesn't want to learn stats? this is not about a person buying the new microsoft office and asking for help on how to use it. what if he /she just wants to be a fan? not an informed stats fan, but just a normal fan? can't we accept that without trying to change him into a rotissori geek?

 

Again, I'm not talking an advanced knowledge in stats, just some basic concepts. And the person you describe sounds very close-minded, someone who thinks only their own opinion matters and counts. I'd rather they just not be here. My criteria for becoming a constructive poster would be a civil tounge and an open mind, thats it. And speak English.

[Brian the Automator]

[ I don?t think we need to force new posters into a certain way of thinking. We don?t want all posters to be similar thinking robots that only espouse WHIP, VROP, etc. ]

 

Let's draw a distinction between a standard stat like WHIP and a complex formula like VORP. People who come here are expected to learn as they go along, and if they're rough around the edges when they come in, it's our job to add our expertise.

 

OBP, OPS, SLG = simple.

VORP, OPS+ = not simple.

 

If we can't at least factor in more than one stat to an argument, the argument is weak. I'm fine with weak arguments, as they can often seed fruitful discussion, but the idea that gets thrown around that WHIP is only for statheads seems disingenuous.

[sbrylski]

Blazer, can you enable your ezInbox? I want to send a quick PM.

[Big Reed]

two easy analogies;

 

word perfect is a better word processing program than MS word. yet the business world forced everybody to know, use and love MS Word.

 

dream weaver is a far better product than front page. yet the business world could care less about all the bells and whistles that dream weaver offered. All they cared about is getting a web site published on the net.

 

as for stats / non stats

 

a lot of us could care less about the new stats. All we want to know are the basics. that is not to say we could never understand your new stats. we've looked at them and just don't think they're worth caring about. We ackowledge dream weaver (new stats ) is a far better program over froont page ( traditional stats). but we don't care because front page provides us everything we want.

 

does anybody here know how to do matrix mutiplication? it's a fun way to do multiplication, but not one I'd want my children to remember come SAT time. it's a tota waste of time - much like many baseball stats. ok, everybody, let's all do a tutorial in matrix multiplication because Mr Bigelow thinks it's a fun way to multiply. Yup, sure.

 

as for Word Perfect verse MS Word. Don't try to force your opinions on us non stats folks. and don't try to force us to be like you. You will meet with a lot of resitance and also resentment While you believe your way may be the right way, and you may believe you are only trying to help us and show us to the world of your stats enlightenment, we may be perfectly comfortable in our non-stats (word perfect) world.

 

when I go to a ball game, the last thing i want to think about is how a bunt is going to affect a batter's OPS.

 

sbrylski - now you are admitting in your last post you are closed minded. Were you just being sarcastic ? was that a form of your humor that i just didn't understand? or did yo u actually say what i thought you said? look at your last paragraph. You are starting to place requirements of who you believe should and should not post here. You don't want closed minded people to post here. That's what I believe you said. you want t o limit posters to only those who are open minded. just because a person hates the use of stats, doesn't mean they are a closed minded person. I'm very open minded when it comes to religion and gay rights. I don't like schools dictating their students wear uniforms. and I don't like people forcing their opinions on others.

 

I personally hate the use of stats to form conclusions to baseball debate topics. and why do i hate the use of stats in baseball stats so much? because for every stat in baseball that a conclusion is based on, there exist at leasts 10 other stats and formulas that can prove that stat wrong or predict a totally different outcome. there comes a time when there are just too many stats and it takes away from the fun of the game. people start to care more about their fantasy teams than they do about their real teams. we start rooting for our opponents to get triples against our reliever who's not on our fantasy team. Wins and losses don't matter, but having puhols on our fantasy team does.

 

in the market world, you have game boys, Nintendo Dx, play stations, xbox, apples and Pcs. I prefer pc games. this doesn't mean that i haven't taken the time to look at the other game boxes and what they can do. this doesn't mean i'm closed minded towards apple. it just means i've looked at the other gaming devices, and i chose the pc games and the pc device. the same applies t o stats .I've looked at the new ones and didn't like any, so i stuck with the old traditional ones..

 

just because somebody doesn't like the new stats does not mean he /she is closed minded towards them or progress. it just means he /she has looked at them and made a constructive decision. and that decision was that i don't need these new stats. they do not enhance my take of the game. there are many worthwhile things out there in the world. just because I'm not LDS, doesn't mean i' m closed minded about their thoughts and ideas.

 

look at President Reagon. he did not want to briefed on details. he was a big picture man. I doubt anybody would consider him closed minded. however, stats were definitely not part of his life - especially baseball stats ( he was a baseball broadcaster).

 

i think it's great you like stats and can apply them to your enjoyment of the game of baseball. but please don't try to force your love of stats one me or other new posters. i don't want or need to take a tutorial on baseball stats. . I can understand them and apply them if i wanted.

 

and please don't limit the participation in this forum to just those baseball fans who love stats or are "informed baseball experts".

[Fatter than Joey]

When I first got here I got shot at left and right, now I think that I fit in

 

...or maybe we are just reloading.... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

a new poster comes and posts something without doing any research.

 

I think that they leave themselves open for this then.

 

The guy came in and said -- "Every pitcher with an ERA over 4.00 sucks". -- If you said that at the bar, at a game, people would immediately call you out for the nonsense that they perceive it to be.

 

I have always felt it is the responsibility of the new people to get up to speed with the thread of the existing posters.

 

I think this whole idea "of how we treat new people " is a bunch of poop. I have asked questions from accounting, baseball, fixing a lamp, and the collective generous nature of the posters who have helped me (and the wealth of their knowledge) always has astounded me. I have found this forum incredibly fun, and thoroughly well-behaved for an internet site. Sure people can get snippy and disagree -- but like my old man always said -- learn to take a punch now and then buttercup.

 

I agree that debates should be civil, and lines shouldn't be crossed, but c'mon, if you are going to make a bold statement that some are going to find silly, then you need to either be able to sufficiently back up your statement, get thumped, or re-evaluate your position. I am not interested in hurting anyone's feelings, but I think people should be able to have their opinions (if shared and expressed) called out without getting all sensitive.

[Fatter than Joey]

I personally hate the use of stats to form conclusions to baseball debate topics. and why do i hate the use of stats in baseball stats so much? because for every stat in baseball that a conclusion is based on, there exist at leasts 10 other stats and formulas that can prove that stat wrong or predict a totally different outcome.

 

See here is a problem -- This statement means nothing, because it is not true -- this is something that people say, that doesn't mean anything, nor is it true. I would love for you to show me an example to illustrate your point.

 

If you don't like Doug Davis because it takes him 1 Hour to get through an inning. -- thats fine. No one said that stats are the only evidence. If you are going to argue a point you better bring more to the table than empty rhetoric, otherwise people are going to call you out on it.

[Team Canada]

Blazer, can you enable your ezInbox? I want to send a quick PM.

 

Yes please do, all members are required to have their ezInbox enabled.

[Brian the Automator]

[ why do i hate the use of stats in baseball stats so much? because for every stat in baseball that a conclusion is based on, there exist at leasts 10 other stats and formulas that can prove that stat wrong or predict a totally different outcome. ]

 

If you look at stats objectively and in a proper context, allowing for as big of a sample size as you can gather, stats more often than not all lead to the same conclusion.

 

Sure, I can take a 100 AB sample size from someone and another and snapshot from another time period and cite contradiction, but that's not responsible.

 

Dismissing stats because you can cherry-pick any stat to prove anything isn't prudent. I hope I would be called out if I did that, and I hope other people are called out if they do that as well... or at least preface with a disclaimer that you're using a certain stat and sample size for a reason.

[sbrylski]

Here is an excerpt from the PM I sent to Reed:

 

Quote:

---

I'm sorry if my post came across as demanding that people learn stats, that was not my intent at all. I just want to make sure that people here can have a basic understanding of what everyone else is trying to say.

 

I have to use stats to backup my arguments, I can't help it. I don't always expect anyone to agree with me. And I understand what and why statistics can be flawed. But a "common fan" who just wants to seemly rant about players without understanding the opposing viewpoint will probably have trouble fitting in, at least at first. And Jondoe did. But what I was happy about was that he said "I apologize for thinking you were calling me names. My bad. And good posts i have learned a couple of things. My chart still rules though" He learned. He didn't have to change his view on whether Dave Bush sucks or not, but by sifting through the deconstuctive sarcasm some posters throw at him, he saw the other side of things. That's all I want. He doesn't have to know FIP, Bush's ERA out of the bullpen or the NL average runs scored in 1988. Just the ability to see both sides. Does this help to clarify a bit?

---

 

----------

 

sbrylski - now you are admitting in your last post you are closed minded. Were you just being sarcastic ? was that a form of your humor that i just didn't understand? or did yo u actually say what i thought you said? look at your last paragraph. You are starting to place requirements of who you believe should and should not post here. You don't want closed minded people to post here.

 

Asking people to have an open-mind means I have a closed mind? I always respect the opposing opinion. If it contradicts mine, I want to know more about why the other person feels about it. I don't go on a rant saying they are wrong and throw complicated stats at them, at least I don't try. Look at my 4.00 ERA posts, I tried to ask why he felt that way and also presented why I feel the opposite. And like I said above, he never changed his opinion, but acknowledged that he learned from some posts, I can only hope from one of mine.

 

And I love debating with Geno, because he just completely picks apart any stat thrown at him. Doesn't mean I end up agreeing with him, or him with me, but they are fun discussions non-the-less.

 

because for every stat in baseball that a conclusion is based on, there exist at leasts 10 other stats and formulas that can prove that stat wrong or predict a totally different outcome.

 

Like said, that is simply not really true. I've heard you use this argument in the past, and while I have never accused you yet of being close-minded yourself, the fact that you've hung on to this falacy does hint that you have some stubborn tendencies.

 

Not that you have to like stats of course, just that you should recognize there is some worth to them. Baseball teams have statistitians working for them, it would not be if they didn't have at least some value.

 

there comes a time when there are just too many stats and it takes away from the fun of the game.

 

For you. To me, it adds to it. We can coexist:

 

I'll point out here that many stats agree with many subjective opinions. I got jumped on a few weeks ago when I used a "stat" to agree that Jenkins has a very nice arm. (I never actually used a number, just mentioned the numbers confirm it.)

[mothershipconnection]

I don?t think we need to force new posters into a certain way of thinking. We don?t want all posters to be similar thinking robots that only espouse WHIP, VROP, etc. That wouldn't lead to much discussion would it?

While you don't NEED to understand stats to be here, or even believe they're great tools, you must understand them to argue about them. The problem isn't people not understanding stats, it's blissful ignorance where troll types start blasting away about stats when they have zero idea what any of them mean. It's the whole "I watch games so I know more than anyone else here" mentality that's annoying.

[billyhallfan]

Quote:

---

I would believe we have a lot of posters who are still in high school

---

 

Presenthttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

There has to be a fine line on here between stats, and advanced stats. As Brian just showed, some stats are simple, while others are way to complicated for the average poster. I for one know most stats except the really complicated ones, but I tried to get an explanation of .FIP, and no one explained it to me at all, 1992Casey replied, but he wasn't able to explain it.

 

I agree with Reed though, this is starting to get out of hand, it seems that whenever you post on bf.net, it always ends up in Batting average is more important than anything else, or .OPS is the only thing that can measure a player's true worth...You get the idea...

[jason21nl]

i have always been in the, I don't care about stats one bit camp..however, when my dad and I discuss the brewers the first thing I say is...his batting ave, rbis, hrs, or era etc..those might not be the complicated ones, but they are still stats...I'll fully admit, I don't understand some of the stats that are mentioned..id like to understand more.....i have always been they type of guy who says, I watch the game, I can see with my own eyes who is good and who isn't...but thinking about it tonight, its not really the right way to think..because most of the time, i can remember the times when a player was either A. really good, or B. really bad...never the times where the player did so/so..sure, i can tell with my own eyes what player has a good arm, or what player just can't throw to save his life...like the Jenkins thread awhile ago..I can tell Jenkins has a good arm and i can tell that podsednik doesn't...so after my rambling I have no idea if what I wrote makes sense to anyone else...but it does to me

[valpocrewsader]

Great topic. Every time someone comes along and posts in an impetuous and slightly sophomoric style, I think to myself, That could be my sister, dad, or one of my cousins posting. Then I look at how that poster is treated, and I'm astounded ... and I actually get very angry.

 

Committed, enthusiastic fans with decades of frustration behind them are bound to sound a little irrational if they're knew to this site. For a site that was described on WSSP all the time last year as wanting to turn casual fans into die-hard fans, the behavior of the forum can sometimes have a surprising, "No Vacancy" attitude towards said casual fans.

 

An unresearched and statistically-false comment can easily be countered with "I see what you're saying, but here's why people around here will disagree with you..." rather than the elitist half-mocking that typically goes on. Think your way of seeing baseball is more enlightened and rational? Think the new poster is -- deep down -- just an avid Brewers fan just like we all are? Seems like the natural course of action would be to educate the person as you'd educate your own family member or neighbor, not bust out the blue-font sarcasm and/or "you're wasting my time" inferences.

 

My 2 cents.

[Big Reed]

i provided a personal reply to the Sbrynski's PM. If Sbrynski wants to forward or provide exerpts to anyone associated with brewerfan, or post it here, I gave him permission to do so. It's long.

 

i have a problem with fatter than joey's expressed attitude in his post above. he wants people to debate him and back up their points with factual evidence. he wants new posters to get up to speed and debate him at his level of knowledge. Why should we demand or expect any poster to get up to speed and talk to you at your level? I'm not even sure what level you are at and how much i need to learn so that I can converse with you. I do know we have many high school and junior high readers and posters who are totally lost by all the statistical explanations used here. Should they just remain silent and not post? Surely if they tried to engage you in a debate about stats, it would not be a fair discussion and would end up in a basic name calling session. How about a new approach? Lower yourself to the level of the person you are talking to? Sometimes, you just go into way too much information and it's a total overload.

 

Even today, many long time posters admitted how they were "hazed" by regular posters, and they weren't truly accepted until they had been posting for over a year. i think what is not being said is that they learned over the course of the year just not to question or oppose the views of certain posters. it's kind of like my wife who has learned not to speak her mind in Sunday school about people's literal interpretation of the Bible and her beliefs. The ladies all think she agrees with their viewpoints. I could put on the same facade here, but I refuse.

 

yes i have mentioned it before, about there are at least 10 stats that can disprove every other stat. Sample size can do a lot to prove or disprove a stat. years and timeframes can also be used. Even the same stat can be used against itself. At the time Ross Perot was running for office, I was taking an international economics course at USF that was looking at the economics of NAFTA . Ross Perot had some really nifty looking charts and some really big ears. Our class decided to stray from our topic for one day and take a look at Perot's ideas. We found every one of his ideas / charts to be totally wrong and against the true principles of economics. Several years ago, I got into a discussion with Al about the value of the baseball stat called CERA. Some of you may recall those discussions. CERA stands for catcher's ERA. it represents the ERA of the catcher as he is catching a game and can be used to guage how great of a catcher he is. I argued with Al for over 3 months over the uselessness of that stat. My premise was that anybody who was Maddux's personal caddie would have a great CERA. and anybody who was Jamie Wright's (brewer's pitcher at that time) caddy would have a terrible CERA. A catcher's CERA was more determined by what/which pitchers were throwing to him than the catcher being a great or bad catcher. CERA as a stat to rate catchers is a totally worthless stat because it is non-conclusive. it can't really be used to prove or predict anything. I've written many posts about how great jenkins is against lefties in the odd years. I've even provided stats and links and references. but others just want to look at his stats from last year and say he should be platooned because he doesn't hit against lefties. For everybody who uses last year as their reference stat and says jenkins should be platooned, I'll use jenkin's career stats and his stats from 2005 and 2003 and 2001 to prove he can hit against lefties. if you want to take me to task about stats go ahead. I just showed you three examples.

 

my main concern and the reason i spoke up today is that once again the word elitist is being used to describe the brewerfan poster. and once again a newbie is complaining about being picked on. We all know this is not the first time this has been mentioned. and it's obvious from other long time posters, that this "hazing" of newbies seems to be a tradition at brewerfan and it usually finds a basis in the overuse of stats by posters to defend their arguments.. I think it's way past time for the "hazing" to stop. there is no way a 9th grade poster can expect to engage in an intelligent conversation if the conversation is taken to a college graduate's level of complexity.

 

I have often informed my wife that many people are not as smart as her and many people don't understand things as easily as she does. There is more than one right way of doing things. Her way may be the most efficient way. (marital tip: Never tell your wife her way isn't the best way) I try to tell her for others, a more simpler approach may be required. and that applies here. you need to tone things down and discuss topics at a level that everyone can understand. and while you may not think you are calling somebody a name, your inclusion of stats in your discussions intimidates many would be posters.

 

I don't have any personal agenda or vendetta against anybody here. I just want to point out that some of you need to rethink how you reply to others. try making your replies as if you were trying to explain it to your son or daughter. Try thinking about how you would discuss a topic with your wife. Are you going to talk FIP with your wife when you discuss jenkins? Will you make her take a tutorial so she can talk at your level? rather tha n brian's opinions, I'd like to hear from his wife about her opinions about the use of stats on this website. She is a member of this site. I'd like to hear from some of the other poster's wives. Wives are not dumb. mine is as smart as me. I'd like to know how many wives like to talk about FIP and OPS, or do they just stick to the basics of ERA and batting averages when they talk about hitters and pitchers? how man y wives would be willing t o take a tutorial about stats so the y could converse wit h people here? or do they think the idea was just as stupid as I did? I quote my wife " take a tutorial just so you can talk sports on an internet sports chat forum? how dumb is that?" Do your wives think you go just a tad overboard in some of your discussions? how about trying to make a newbie feel welcome rather than always challenging their oppinions and making them prove their worth? I realize many of you posters were put through hell your first few months of posting here. I'd like to think the future would be different. there are some posters who will never be up to speed on stats. and there are many others who just shy away from debates and conflicts and many others who just don't care.. I care. I care a lot.

 

I closed out my pm to sbrynski with this thought:

 

the question i leave you with because i could go on and on, is one of focus and direction. what do you want brewerfan to be? what is it's focus? what type of posters do you want posting at brewerfan? Do you want it to remain an open forum where anybody can post their thoughts? or do you want to limit posts to only intelligent debate? if you look around, very few sports forums are focused on intelligent factual discussions. most open forums are the escape for drunks to vent their rage after their team loses.

 

I think brewerfan is a great site. I always have. however, it is not geared or oriented to the common man. It is geared and oriented to the intellectual. Is that the direction you want brewerfan to take? or do you want the forums to be less factual; less inhibitive and less argumentative?

 

You can forward this reply in part or whole to anybody in brewerfan you like. I'm not really mad at you or any other poster. and many of the things I told you could easily be referenced to others. but you can probably see yourself in some of the topics i discussed. the main point is that today was not the first time somebody refered to brewerfan regulars as elitist. and it's not the first time somebody admitted that other posters tend to haze newbies for 6 months to a year before they were accepted. that is something i would like to see changed.

[sbrylski]

Here was my response...(I suppose our discussion can be taken public here, it pertains to everyone)

 

As for what I want BrewerFan to be...I guess I come here to learn. To learn about the Brewers, and to learn about baseball. I've also always been mathematically inclined, so naturally I gravitate toward statistics.

 

When I see a new poster get met with cruel sarcasm, I feel bad. I personally never specifically use sarcasm with new posters, or at least try not to. Instead, I suppose I try to ask why they feel that way. Then I present why I feel the opposite and try to create a constructive discussion. Why? Because that's what I'd want someone to do with comments I make. I want to learn from everyone else here. Maybe its in poor taste to assume that the other poster wants that type of learning experience. Like you said, some visitors to the site just love baseball and want an avenue to express their thoughts.

 

So yes, it was not a good move on my part to suggest a "tutorial" for new posters. I just assumed that they, like me, would want to learn. I suppose I was being alittle close-minded.

 

Then, my question is, do you feel these different types of posters can co-exist? Obviously, newbies get scared away, so the "educated" posters are probably going to continue to win the battle, and I suppose that's in my favor as these are the people I want to learn from.

 

But how should I treat newer, venting posters? It is my nature to attempt to debate, and use all the knowledge I have. If they aren't looking for constructive critism, why are they here posting? I've got a guy in my apartment building who shares the same passion for baseball as I do and often approaches me to discuss baseball, however he's the venter, the "uneducated" fan. (Is there a better term I should be using here?) But that's not what bothers me. What irks me about him is I don't think he's ever heard a word I said about baseball. Its a one-sided discussion, he's not there to hear my opinion, he's there to talk at me. I really don't know how to handle the situation. I just tune him out and wait until he's finished.

 

But I hate these "discussions". If this was BrewerFan, I wouldn't visit.

 

----------

 

If you want to take me to task about stats go ahead. I just showed you three examples.

 

Careful not to lump all stat users together. Many stat people acknowledge that some stats are worthless, and some are better than others. In fact, I've argued against platooning Clark with Jenkins. (Actually, I'm beginning to see your point about using the same stat to argue two different things. Doesn't mean I'm going to not be a stat guy though.)