PDA

View Full Version : Sabermetrics Forum?



RedsManRick
08-22-2007, 11:39 AM
I think it goes without saying that one of the primary tension on the board is between those who are sabermetrically inclined and those who are not. I'm sure this is true for the Sun Deck as well as ORG.

While certainly advanced stat conversations are useful and productive in the context of many discussions, often the discussion topic is derailed by a discussion on the appropriateness of a given measure.

I think it would behoove the site to have a special forum dedicated to sabermetric/advanced statistical analysis. It would allow for a stickied repository of definitions for 'basic' concepts like run scoring correlations (which Steel has posted ad naseum for good reason), VORP, etc. This would provide quick access to these discussions without the need to rehash them over and over again. It would also be a less cluttered place to post some of the great analysis being done by site members like WoY and Cyclone. Heck, we could even have "THE Adam Dunn Thread" rather than rehashing it over 15 pages once a week.

Lastly, it could be accessible to ALL site members, provided an appropriate level of intelligent discussion. This would allow ORG members more access to Sun Deck members in a specialized context. This has worked to great effect in the Minors forum, where discussion is free, but focused.

While I certainly appreciate the importance of maintaining a critical mass of activity in any given forum, and not spreading out discussion unnecessarily, I think this forum would add to the site, make some of this type of thinking more accessible, and cut down on a lot of the completely unnecessary, repetitive conversations that add clutter and detract from the RedsZone experience.

Dom Heffner
08-22-2007, 11:44 AM
All I know is that the non-saber forum should have a title like "The Hustle Forum" or ""Intangible Talk."

And the saber forum should have a big "Nerd Alert" sign somewhere around the link.

I'll be proudly hanging out in both. :)

Muggerd
08-22-2007, 01:49 PM
Talk about one big head ache of a forum :laugh:

I like the idea though

Boss-Hog
08-22-2007, 05:47 PM
I think it goes without saying that one of the primary tension on the board is between those who are sabermetrically inclined and those who are not. I'm sure this is true for the Sun Deck as well as ORG.

I agree with that, but the solution is to learn to be civil towards others who don't follow the game the same way you do, not to segregate discussion topics. I'm not necessarily vetoing the idea, but I do want to point out that's how I feel about the topic.

Ltlabner
08-22-2007, 09:53 PM
Lastly, it could be accessible to ALL site members, provided an appropriate level of intelligent discussion. This would allow ORG members more access to Sun Deck members in a specialized context. This has worked to great effect in the Minors forum, where discussion is free, but focused.

While I certainly appreciate the importance of maintaining a critical mass of activity in any given forum, and not spreading out discussion unnecessarily, I think this forum would add to the site, make some of this type of thinking more accessible, and cut down on a lot of the completely unnecessary, repetitive conversations that add clutter and detract from the RedsZone experience.

It's a great idea in theory, but the folks who love to go round and round about the same numbers related stuff are just as likely to do so in a specialized forum as they do in the regular forum.

edabbs44
08-22-2007, 10:04 PM
That would be a dangerous forum....kind of like Thunderdome.

nate
08-23-2007, 09:38 AM
That would be a dangerous forum....kind of like Thunderdome.

Two men enter, one man leaves!

GoReds33
08-23-2007, 01:28 PM
Two men enter, one man leaves!Who knows? Maybe no one will come out. Why do they always say only one will come out? I want to see 2 people in a boxing match reach back and knock eachother out at the same time. If anybody can find a video link of that happening send it to me. Thanks.:)

AmarilloRed
08-23-2007, 02:47 PM
I think it would be a good idea for those people who enjoy it. I am not one who overly relies on advanced statistics, but I appreciate people who use data to back up their posts.

Ltlabner
08-23-2007, 06:25 PM
Two men enter, one man leaves!

All those scary numbers!

RedsManRick
08-24-2007, 01:25 PM
What it would do is allow us stats geeks to not feel the need to repeat ourselves as much while clearing out some of the "clutter" from ORG. It also gives us another way to interact with SunDeck posters.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 01:37 PM
What it would do is allow us stats geeks to not feel the need to repeat ourselves as much while clearing out some of the "clutter" from ORG. It also gives us another way to interact with SunDeck posters.

I agree that it would be a cool place, and I like the interaction with SunDeck posters aspect (as long as it doesn't usurp the idea of ORG being the place to go on RZ).

I'm just not sure how it does anything to prevent those who want to argue about the "sillyness" of numbers, or beat the same dead-horses without trying to understand statistical anaylsis from coming into the stats froum and mucking things up.

But if this does come to pass, I cast one vote for the forum to be called "Stat Land". And SteelSD would be required to end every post with "SteelSD from Stat Land...Out! "

edabbs44
08-24-2007, 01:40 PM
What it would do is allow us stats geeks to not feel the need to repeat ourselves as much while clearing out some of the "clutter" from ORG. It also gives us another way to interact with SunDeck posters.

I could see it easily becoming an elitist society leading to unnecessary mayhem.

Ltlabner
08-24-2007, 01:47 PM
I could see it easily becoming an elitist society leading to unnecessary mayhem.

http://www.theilluminatiguild.org/images/illuminati.jpg

westofyou
08-24-2007, 01:50 PM
I could see it easily becoming an elitist society leading to unnecessary mayhem.

Or a cesspool that emits tired stereotypes about elitism and statistical study.

edabbs44
08-24-2007, 02:04 PM
Or a cesspool that emits tired stereotypes about elitism and statistical study.

Exactly.

SteelSD
08-24-2007, 09:02 PM
I'm just not sure how it does anything to prevent those who want to argue about the "sillyness" of numbers, or beat the same dead-horses without trying to understand statistical anaylsis from coming into the stats froum and mucking things up.

Yeah, that's a real good point. The problem with such a venue would that it would need to be heavily moderated- especially if everyone could potentially start a thread. The idea of compartmentatlization is solid, but allowing open access to such a forum would be, IMHO, defeating the purpose.


But if this does come to pass, I cast one vote for the forum to be called "Stat Land". And SteelSD would be required to end every post with "SteelSD from Stat Land...Out! "

Only if I lose a bet and considering that I generally only bet on sure things, that's not bloody likely. ;)

HumnHilghtFreel
08-24-2007, 10:18 PM
Who knows? Maybe no one will come out. Why do they always say only one will come out? I want to see 2 people in a boxing match reach back and knock eachother out at the same time. If anybody can find a video link of that happening send it to me. Thanks.:)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=11Rp8wBCuXI Ask and you shall receive!

And also. I think this is a solid idea. More than anything though, I think a sticky with descriptions of how some of the stats actually work being posted would be for the best, if nothing else. That way it's easily accessed.

jojo
08-25-2007, 10:29 AM
I agree with that, but the solution is to learn to be civil towards others who don't follow the game the same way you do, not to segregate discussion topics. I'm not necessarily vetoing the idea, but I do want to point out that's how I feel about the topic.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/cool11.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

RedsManRick
08-25-2007, 12:01 PM
Debating the merits of this type of analysis would absolutely be fair game. And it would be much better to have those types of conversations on a separate board rather than ORG. Those sorts of meta level debates, while fun and valuable, just gunk up ORG. They become discussion about statistics and measurement techniques rather than the players and events we're measuring.

If some stats skeptic like edabbs doesn't want to have to look at numbers, he can avoid the forum entirely. However, when Steel, Jojo, Cyclone, etc. post something that took alot of work and is of great value to those of us who do think in those terms, I'd love to be able to find it, if not have it stickied. That could happen in a sabermetrics forum.

For those people who don't want every post in ORG to become a debate on the validity of stats, this forum would help. For those who want to be able to have a discussion in those terms, they won't necessarily have to defend the validity of basic assumptions over and over again. Everybody wins.

Boss, it's not meant soley to be a segregation of the topic to avoid confrontation, though that might be a side effect. Rather, it's a place for more focused discussion beyond that which occurs naturally in ORG. It's a place for a deeper dive down in to those ideas, without detracting from the (assumed) purpose of ORG which is focused more directly on Reds baseball. And as a separate forum, it would give the members of the SunDeck who are so inclined to interact with the ORG community on that level. Just like a minor leaguer's name will come up in the context of an everyday discussion, and yet we still have a dedicated board for the more focussed, deeper level discussion.

gonelong
08-25-2007, 12:21 PM
100% against it.

GL

edabbs44
08-25-2007, 12:32 PM
If some stats skeptic like edabbs doesn't want to have to look at numbers, he can avoid the forum entirely. However, when Steel, Jojo, Cyclone, etc. post something that took alot of work and is of great value to those of us who do think in those terms, I'd love to be able to find it, if not have it stickied. That could happen in a sabermetrics forum.

Stats skeptic? No, not really. I believe that most stats have value. My biggest issue about some stats are the presentation of them on this board. I have seen instances where people have been virtually body-slammed because they thought outside of what RC/27 or OPS tells you. When that person talks about something that doesn't show up in one metric or another, then they basically "don't know" what they are talking about. And some on here aren't afraid to tell them the same.

I don't mind looking at numbers. Hell, I think that they are a great way to determine a player's value as long as they are looked at in the right mind-set and not shoved in your face as the only way to evaluate a player. In many instances, if one stat "proves" a poster's point and another stat "disproves" it, then that second stat is usually discounted. Often in a venomous tone as well.

I have a feeling that the second board will cause a lot of problems. Just the fact that some think there is a need for a seperate board to speak about specific stats is already showing that there will be a distinct division in the board. If some want to have a stats only discussion, then start up a new thread to talk about it. No need for a new section altogether. Then again, it won't really bother me on a personal level. If some feel the need to stroke each other on the values of certain stats, then so be it. I just don't think it will be good for the overall health of the site.

That's why I think that a seperate board could be more trouble than anyone bargains for.

jojo
08-25-2007, 01:11 PM
Boss, it's not meant soley to be a segregation of the topic to avoid confrontation, though that might be a side effect. Rather, it's a place for more focused discussion beyond that which occurs naturally in ORG.

First, I understand where RMR is coming from and I actually see benefits for those that find a stat-heavy approach to interpretting the game distasteful. Personally, I'd also enjoy an opportunity to interact with sundeckers too. That said though if there was a sabermetric forum, then really, threads using that approach wouldn't have a home in Redszone per se and people inclined to support their arguments using a stats-based approach might gravitate from Redszone which I think would be unfortunate.

Chip R
08-26-2007, 11:05 AM
I think this one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard of.

vaticanplum
08-26-2007, 04:13 PM
If we get a sabermetrics forum, we get a uniform forum. The Uniforum. That's all there is to it. I've had enough of you all and your slide rules.

improbus
08-26-2007, 07:31 PM
Can we name the Forum, "For Guys That Love Dunn" and an opposing forum entitled, "For Guys That Love Hopper". I think that might get the basic point across.;)

jojo
08-26-2007, 07:47 PM
Can we name the Forum, "For Guys That Love Dunn" and an opposing forum entitled, "For Guys That Love Hopper". I think that might get the basic point across.;)

I'd probably post in the "For guys who see Dunn for what he is" forum.

Degenerate39
08-26-2007, 07:49 PM
I'd probably post in the "For guys who see Dunn for what he is" forum.

That forum name might as well be Run Producers :D

jojo
08-26-2007, 07:55 PM
That forum name might as well be Run Producers :D

"Ying and Yang or the bat ain't the only thang....."

BoydsOfSummer
08-26-2007, 09:20 PM
I can't feel my face.

Ltlabner
08-27-2007, 06:10 AM
I think this one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard of.

Geez Chip...how do you really feal? :dunno:

Ltlabner
08-27-2007, 07:12 AM
Only if I lose a bet and considering that I generally only bet on sure things, that's not bloody likely. ;)

Steel, would you consider this instead as an ending for all your posts? :p:


PEACE

-SteelSD

Chip R
08-27-2007, 10:02 AM
Geez Chip...how do you really feal? :dunno:


You don't want to know.

Ltlabner
08-27-2007, 10:09 AM
You don't want to know.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1258/3306_0329.jpg

Oh, but I do...I do.

Roy Tucker
08-27-2007, 11:49 AM
I think it would have some merit if a sub-forum off ORG. Stat-mongers could have a field day. Call it the Bit Bucket.

But to put it out in the DMZ, it would be like trying to negotiate a peace between Israel and Hezbollah. IEDs and drive-by shootings would be commonplace.

RedsManRick
08-27-2007, 01:58 PM
The primary point is not to move the threads using statistics that are about the Reds. It's a place to talk about statistics in general, a place for those meta discussions about stats that otherwise detract from the Reds specific talk. It's not segregation by philosophy, but rather a way to remove some of the distracting non-Reds focused discussion from ORG, while providing another place for topic-specific interaction of all RedsZone members. Guess I forgot what a touchy subject it is.

camisadelgolf
08-27-2007, 02:55 PM
Here are a few other forums that could get some use:

Drew Stubbs Is a Bust
St. Louis Cardinals
Juan Castro Is Useless
_____________ Sucks (Despite What the Facts Say)
Release Mike Stanton

jojo
08-27-2007, 03:06 PM
The primary point is not to move the threads using statistics that are about the Reds. It's a place to talk about statistics in general, a place for those meta discussions about stats that otherwise detract from the Reds specific talk. It's not segregation by philosophy, but rather a way to remove some of the distracting non-Reds focused discussion from ORG, while providing another place for topic-specific interaction of all RedsZone members. Guess I forgot what a touchy subject it is.

I think your idea isn't even in the same universe as silliest idea ever...

Degenerate39
08-27-2007, 03:59 PM
Here are a few other forums that could get some use:

Drew Stubbs Is a Bust
St. Louis Cardinals
Juan Castro Is Useless
_____________ Sucks (Despite What the Facts Say)
Release Mike Stanton

I think we can all agree on those

camisadelgolf
08-28-2007, 01:41 AM
I'm not on the 'Release Mike Stanton' bandwagon just yet, but if he doesn't turn it around by the All-Star break next year, I'll be willing to pay for his ticket out of town, though.

RANDY IN INDY
08-28-2007, 11:54 AM
I think it is a tremendous idea.

Sea Ray
08-28-2007, 04:16 PM
I think this one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard of.

C'mon now! The first 6 months will be devoted to vocabulary like a foreign language taught in high school. Just the ABCs will include such words as AdjG, APW, AEqRA, AEqR, BRARP, BRAR, BFP, and collapse rate. After the vocabulary is mastered, then we'll graduate to things like the latest on ORG: Pitcher Abuse Points. I think it only took a little over 1500 words to describe that one. Instead of rep points, pupils who master this forum will be awarded credits toward their foreign language requirement at any accredited school. :)

registerthis
08-28-2007, 05:34 PM
then we'll graduate to things like the latest on ORG: Pitcher Abuse Points. I think it only took a little over 1500 words to describe that one.

And, still, there are people who don't understand it.

Cyclone792
08-28-2007, 05:54 PM
After the vocabulary is mastered, then we'll graduate to things like the latest on ORG: Pitcher Abuse Points. I think it only took a little over 1500 words to describe that one.

I have an even better idea.

How about we create a subforum where we discuss how certain ORG posters apparently find it worthwhile to take swipes at other posters in for no particular reason at all.

Sea Ray
08-28-2007, 06:33 PM
And, still, there are people who don't understand it.

You're right I don't understand. We only have so many hours in a day. I don't understand using those precious hours arguing about AdjG and AEqR and all the other hours pouring over sabermetrics. Personally I'd rather spend that time watching baseball, hanging out with my family, boating or making money. But don't get all defensive about it. Diversity is what makes the world go 'round. A lot of folks don't understand why I follow sports like I do. To each his own.

westofyou
08-28-2007, 07:57 PM
You're right I don't understand. We only have so many hours in a day. I don't understand using those precious hours arguing about AdjG and AEqR and all the other hours pouring over sabermetrics. Personally I'd rather spend that time watching baseball, hanging out with my family, boating or making money. But don't get all defensive about it. Diversity is what makes the world go 'round. A lot of folks don't understand why I follow sports like I do. To each his own.

To each their own unless there's a good insult to drop eh?

Heath
08-28-2007, 08:12 PM
I think this thread can be discussed in a manner that isn't pompous and belitting others likes and dislikes.

There are many different ways to watch a baseball game. If this forum is created, it should be used appropriately. The one item that would cause that particular forum to crumble would be repeated trolls and flames.

This thread wasn't meant for an Us vs. Them. It was started to promote civil discussion.

Be very careful.

Sea Ray
08-28-2007, 09:21 PM
To those that would like to see a Sabermetrics forum:

What do you envision being able to do that you cannot do on any of the existing forums?

jojo
08-28-2007, 09:54 PM
To those that would like to see a Sabermetrics forum:

What do you envision being able to do that you cannot do on any of the existing forums?

Ummm, I thought that was already clearly and articulately explained earlier:


The primary point is not to move the threads using statistics that are about the Reds. It's a place to talk about statistics in general, a place for those meta discussions about stats that otherwise detract from the Reds specific talk. It's not segregation by philosophy, but rather a way to remove some of the distracting non-Reds focused discussion from ORG, while providing another place for topic-specific interaction of all RedsZone members. Guess I forgot what a touchy subject it is.

The thing about jokes/jabs that are meant to demean is the ever present danger that the one telling them is in reality the punchline.

RedsManRick
08-28-2007, 11:42 PM
To those that would like to see a Sabermetrics forum:

What do you envision being able to do that you cannot do on any of the existing forums?

Stickied definitions for things such as Eqa or VORP for starters. In depth write-ups or analysis done which require more than a cursory understanding of OPS. But most of all, a place to do it where those sorts of posts don't turn in to passioned arguments over the merits of those sorts of posts.

What can you do on ORG that you can't do on the SunDeck? It's not about what you can do, it's an organizaitonal issue.

The whole debate over whether or not this forum is merited is, in my mind, evidence that it is. It gives us a place to talk about stastical measurement and evaluation which doesn't detract from the purpose of ORG, which is more Reds specific. As SunRay stated, he doesn't care for this type of analysis and I know he's not alone. It's not that I want him to be able to avoid it. Rather, I'd like to avoid having to have this discussion over and over again everytime somebody goes down this road.

Creating this forum would move those redundant meta discussions on the merit of analytic evaluation largely off of ORG, and give those of us who do want to dive deeper, discuss some new saber article, discuss Dunn's infalibility, etc. a place to do it with a bit more organization.

I'm getting tired of having to defend certain arguments over and over again without any place to reference. Want to know why some of us think that 15 at bats isn't a big enough sample -- or what we think is? Look at post XXXXXX on the Sabermetrics Forum. Why not start to build a critical mass of this type of work and discussion which is a little more easily accessible than the search function?

RFS62
08-29-2007, 07:17 AM
Stickied definitions for things such as Eqa or VORP for starters. In depth write-ups or analysis done which require more than a cursory understanding of OPS. But most of all, a place to do it where those sorts of posts don't turn in to passioned arguments over the merits of those sorts of posts.

What can you do on ORG that you can't do on the SunDeck? It's not about what you can do, it's an organizaitonal issue.

The whole debate over whether or not this forum is merited is, in my mind, evidence that it is. It gives us a place to talk about stastical measurement and evaluation which doesn't detract from the purpose of ORG, which is more Reds specific. As SunRay stated, he doesn't care for this type of analysis and I know he's not alone. It's not that I want him to be able to avoid it. Rather, I'd like to avoid having to have this discussion over and over again everytime somebody goes down this road.

Creating this forum would move those redundant meta discussions on the merit of analytic evaluation largely off of ORG, and give those of us who do want to dive deeper, discuss some new saber article, discuss Dunn's infalibility, etc. a place to do it with a bit more organization.

I'm getting tired of having to defend certain arguments over and over again without any place to reference. Want to know why some of us think that 15 at bats isn't a big enough sample -- or what we think is? Look at post XXXXXX on the Sabermetrics Forum. Why not start to build a critical mass of this type of work and discussion which is a little more easily accessible than the search function?




I agree. I think it's a great idea.

RFS62
08-29-2007, 07:23 AM
I'm more than a little confused by the outcry against such a forum.

It reminds me of the joke about the little old lady who called the cops to report lewd behavior from her neighbors.

The cop shows up, and she proceeds to tell him how her neighbors are getting it on in plain view.

The cop looks towards their house, and can't see anything.

The little old lady says "Sure you can. Just climb up on the refrigerator and you can see everything through that window as plain as day!!"


So, if you don't like these kind of discussions, don't climb up on the refrigerator to find them. Just avoid the forum, and let the people who find it interesting alone.

RANDY IN INDY
08-29-2007, 08:00 AM
Well said.:beerme:

SandyD
08-29-2007, 08:08 AM
I think the objection, truly, is to the segregation of ideas. Would statistical analysis be no longer welcome on ORG? When does a thread become too heavily stat laden to require separation?

A forum to discuss sabremetrics and statistical analysis in general, where people can discuss statistical analysis in an abstract way might be interesting. However, threads which apply those statistics to games, player evaluation, trades, etc belong on the baseball board.

It's the parry-ripostes that follow that are the problem. Not the ideas themselves.

camisadelgolf
08-29-2007, 08:46 AM
Maybe instead of having a heated conversation, we could have a poll in this forum. It might turn out that only 10% of RZers want one, in which case, it probably wouldn't be worth the moderators' time to create it. Personally, I enjoy sabermetrics, but I don't want to feel obligated to have to talk about them in a designated forum.

pahster
08-29-2007, 09:38 AM
I think it's a good idea. Seems like a more appropriate venue for the discussion of methodological issues.

Sea Ray
08-29-2007, 10:00 AM
What can you do on ORG that you can't do on the SunDeck? It's not about what you can do, it's an organizaitonal issue.

The whole debate over whether or not this forum is merited is, in my mind, evidence that it is. It gives us a place to talk about stastical measurement and evaluation which doesn't detract from the purpose of ORG, which is more Reds specific.




I don't see the analogy with the Sundeck/ORG. Those forums do not differ in what you can do. They differ in who can do it.

So far as I know, there's no rule against posting staistical measurement and evaluation and I don't think such posts detract from the purpose of ORG. I still don't see what problem this new forum would fix. There are new threads started all the time on ORG that are heavy in sabermetrics and I have yet to see a "padlock" on the thread shortly thereafter.

Having said that, let me make myself very clear: I don't care if a sabermetric forum is added. It doesn't make any difference to me. There are forums on RZ now that I rarely visit. The issue is whether the administrators want to have the burden of another forum to create and nurture.

GIK
08-29-2007, 10:00 AM
I understand how some of you guys feel in your desire for such a forum, but IMO, it is not necessary. Those conversations are baseball discussions, which can take place in the standard baseball forums. It also causes our staff to read nearly every thread and then have to decide if it includes sabermetrics, then move it. Honestly I don't see it as a necessity.

RedsManRick
08-29-2007, 10:45 AM
GIK, as an alterante, is there any way to build a reference library then, perhaps in the archives? A place to store those definitions, articles, etc. which can provide a much more complete backdrop for those more complex sabermetric discusions which do inevitably arise on ORG? For me, the #1 problem is having to address the sample size question 10 times a day, and that response inevitably turning in to a name calling contest. Having a fixed point of reference for such things would (in my estimation) help us get past some of that bickering and on the real points at hand.

GIK
08-29-2007, 10:50 AM
If someone would like to create a FAQ on the subject, I would have no problem archiving it and listing it on the site.

Boss-Hog
08-29-2007, 04:50 PM
GIK, as an alterante, is there any way to build a reference library then, perhaps in the archives? A place to store those definitions, articles, etc. which can provide a much more complete backdrop for those more complex sabermetric discusions which do inevitably arise on ORG? For me, the #1 problem is having to address the sample size question 10 times a day, and that response inevitably turning in to a name calling contest. Having a fixed point of reference for such things would (in my estimation) help us get past some of that bickering and on the real points at hand.
I think that's a good idea whether it in the form on archived posts and/or the FAQ that GIK suggested.

Unassisted
08-29-2007, 09:29 PM
If someone would like to create a FAQ on the subject, I would have no problem archiving it and listing it on the site.

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, why not start with this FAQ thread (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31264)?

Ron Madden
08-30-2007, 04:55 AM
I'm more than a little confused by the outcry against such a forum.

It reminds me of the joke about the little old lady who called the cops to report lewd behavior from her neighbors.

The cop shows up, and she proceeds to tell him how her neighbors are getting it on in plain view.

The cop looks towards their house, and can't see anything.

The little old lady says "Sure you can. Just climb up on the refrigerator and you can see everything through that window as plain as day!!"


So, if you don't like these kind of discussions, don't climb up on the refrigerator to find them. Just avoid the forum, and let the people who find it interesting alone.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm in full agreement here. ;)

Ron Madden
08-30-2007, 05:23 AM
It's up to Boss and GIK, it doesn't really matter to me.

We can all learn from the ORG forum if we only open our minds and stop clinging to our own misquided or misinformed beliefs.

I've loved the Reds and "The Game" all my life. Thanks to RedsZone and the disscussion of Sabermetrics my love and enjoyment of Baseball and the Reds has grown by leaps and bounds.

camisadelgolf
09-03-2007, 07:18 AM
If you're going to start a new forum, I'm not sure Sabermetrics would even be in the top-ten most necessary, seeing as how it's not discussed as much as some other topics. I agree with GIK when he says it isn't a necessity, but I think it's not a necessity for different reasons. Keep in mind, also, that I don't think anyone would complain if you paid for a Cincinnati Reds Sabermetrics message board out of your own pocket.