On the declining quality of the ORG

[757690]

What is wrong with someone asking for evidence when someone states an opinion like fact?

For example, in a thread recently you said a #1 starter must be under a certain benchmark, #2 must be under a certain benchmark, and so on. Unless I am mistaken you portrayed this opinion as if it were fact. I see nothing wrong with someone questioning a statement like that.

I don't mind people asking anyone to back up their argument. What I mind is being dismissed as irrelevant if I don't use the right stats, or don't use stats at all. There are many ways to back up an argument, to defend one's opinion, without advanced stats, or stats at all. We should be able to do so without fear of ridicule or insults.

In that particular instance you mentioned, when I was asked to back up my opinion, I stated it was nothing more than an opinion, and everyone moved on. That was a fine discussion, imo.

[dougdirt]

My only issue with the SABR crowd is when statements are made that dont fall in line with the SABR movement, then those statements are shot down as meaningless. I know the SABR guys put a lot of work into the research and everything, but I'm not trying to convince them their stats are meaningless, they just aren't what I use to evaluate a ball player. Also, I've came around to some of the SABR stuff, I just haven't done a ton of research on it. I know its probly the future of baseball, or at least going to be a big part of it, but with the time I have to enjoy baseball, I would rather watch and enjoy rather than be online looking at stats!!! GOOD DAY!!!

It needs to be pointed out that SABR and sabermetrics are two very different things. SABR is not always about sabermetrics. In fact, most members of SABR are more historian types that sabermatricians.

To address that sabermetrics are probably the future of baseball. They aren't. They are the present of baseball. They haven't replaced scouting, but they have joined scouting as a full picture of what is going on in the game. While not everyone is fully on board, everyone is pretty much somewhat on board who works in a baseball front office.

The three pages following hatcher's post proved his point. He is 100% dead on accurate.

It is impossible to make any point about the Reds on this board without many posters demanding that you provide statistical evidence to back up your claim. It really would be nice to just discuss the Reds and baseball, without getting so freakin serious and analytical about it.

These notions that: if an opinion isn't backed up by stats, it's crap; all baseball card stats are worthless; you can't learn anything from just watching the game; statistical evidence is the only evidence that matters; etc are alway brought up anytime any opinion is given, and it ruins the discussion.

I don't blame anyone who just wants to discuss Reds baseball from not wanting to post here. I know there are a ton of great opinions and thoughts that are getting stifled, and it's a shame.

I think this is inaccurate. I am a big stats guy, but I am also a big scouting guy. I have made countless posts about how I am not a fan of Pitcher WAR or even of Baseball-Reference WAR in general for modern times since we have had access to UZR for defensive valuations. I make scouting statements often enough in the ORG that get by just fine. Everything someone discusses with baseball is going to come back to some sort of statistical evidence. You can't claim a guy is good or bad without using some kind of statistical measure to come to that conclusion.

I would love to see where someone claimed you can't learn anything from just watching the game. I've never seen someone say that.

[dougdirt]

I don't mind people asking anyone to back up their argument. What I mind is being dismissed as irrelevant if I don't use the right stats, or don't use stats at all. There are many ways to back up an argument, to defend one's opinion, without advanced stats, or stats at all. We should be able to do so without fear of ridicule or insults.

In that particular instance you mentioned, when I was asked to back up my opinion, I stated it was nothing more than an opinion, and everyone moved on. That was a fine discussion, imo.

Saying it's my opinion isn't a discussion though. Explaining how and why you came to that opinion would be.

Scouts often label guys as 1,2,3,4, 5 starters. I haven't understood how they come up with it for a long time because it simply doesn't make sense. It's like they are still using the same definitions as when there were 14 teams in the game. Each team uses five starters. There are 30 teams. Figure out what criteria you want to use to determine "value" of your pitchers (be it ERA/Innings, FIP, whatever) and then it's simply taking the top 30 by that standard and saying they are #1 starters, the next 30 are #2 guys and so on.

[757690]

I do hear you, Brutus, but today's understanding of the game is not going to allow for the bull dump of yesteryear.

I wholly get that people want to talk about how RBI's are an awesome thing, but when someone else can prove that it isn't, it's going to be really tough to have "just a conversation."

Because at some point, "Just talking" becomes a complete waste of time for someone who knows better.

It's that notion that you "know better" that ruins threads.

I think I know better all the time, and then learn, after debating with others, that I don't. I promise you Sarah Palin is convinced that she "knows better."

"Knowing better" and acting like you always do know better than anyone who disagree with you, results in a lousy message board debate.

[Dom Heffner]

It's that notion that you "know better" that ruins threads.

I think I know better all the time, and then learn, after debating with others, that I don't. I promise you Sarah Palin is convinced that she "knows better."

"Knowing better" and acting like you always do know better than anyone who disagree with you, results in a lousy message board debate.

It isn't "knowing better." It's using statistics to prove an assertion.

Just saying something without anything to back it up is "knowing better."

[NeilHamburger]

What's going on at Redszone is just a symptom of the times. I guess what I'm saying is it's a rare condition, this day and age, to read any good news on the newspaper page. Love and tradition of the grand design, some people say it's even harder to find.

Well then there must be some magic clue inside these tearful walls.
Cause all I see is a tower of dreams,real love burstin' out of every seam.

[Rojo]

It's that notion that you "know better" that ruins threads.

When the workers were agitating for an 11 hour workday in 19th century Britain, an economist came up a study that proved that all the profit the mill owners derived were from the 12th hour of work, the first 11 hours were to break even. An 11-hour work day would the ruin of the nation. There were facts and figures to show this.

I don't have a problem with setting our minds to numbers when it comes to the economy or baseball. But both are dynamic fields that require you're more scientist than apostle. And that science requires a host of methodologies.

As for nailing shows to the native's feet, I'm bored with it.

[Dom Heffner]

When the workers were agitating for an 11 hour workday in 19th century Britain, an economist came up a study that proved that all the profit the mill owners derived were from the 12th hour of work, the first 11 hours were to break even. An 11-hour work day would the ruin of the nation. There were facts and figures to show this.

I don't have a problem with setting our minds to numbers when it comes to the economy or baseball. But both are dynamic fields that require you're more scientist than apostle. And that science requires a host of methodologies.

As for nailing shows to the native's feet, I'm bored with it.

The difference, of course, is that the worker study was wrong and it could be proven, with numbers, to be so.

The RBI arguments have been things like, "Thom is a good baseball guy."

Or "I just want to talk and not be challenged."

[Rojo]

The difference, of course, is that the worker study was wrong and it could be proven, with numbers, to be so.

The RBI arguments have been things like, "Thom is a good baseball guy."

Or "I just want to talk and not be challenged."

Ok, I haven't read that thread. I guess I just don't care enough about it. It's like Sarah Palin. At this point, who cares.

[Brutus]

The difference, of course, is that the worker study was wrong and it could be proven, with numbers, to be so.

The RBI arguments have been things like, "Thom is a good baseball guy."

Or "I just want to talk and not be challenged."

I think you're using the word proof in too absolute of terms.

The reason we have the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" is because two sets of data might move in the same direction, but that doesn't prove anything. We still have to find out why or we don't know much. Most of the sabermetric "proof" you speak of resorts to simple correlation or perhaps the occasional regression analysis.

While slugging, for example, does correlate better than RBIs, at the end of the day we're still talking about two statistically significant variables. That one has a higher correlation doesn't necessarily "prove" anything. It's suggestive, most definitely, but it's not proof.

It's like I said with the preaching from religious texts: the problem is that it's people with two separate paradigms and belief systems arguing over principles that are unique to each. Without accepting the paradigm, one will not subscribe to the principle. There are some people that believe in traditional lineup construction from a standpoint where they believe batters should get in base for the sluggers who should drive them in. While there has been plenty of studies performed to show that ultimately you want as many batters getting on base AND hitting for power as possible, to people that believe in the former, citing something like RBIs is not irrational even if we believe there are better methods.

Problem comes with things like balls in play. Ten years ago, Voros McCracken was sure that DIPS was proof that people needed to pay no attention to balls in play. He had done the research and was convinced that pitchers had absolutely no control over BABIP. He had "proof." He lectured about it and people starting believing it and belittled anyone that still used things like BAA or ERA. Guess what? Turns out, Voros was mistaken and pitchers did have some control over balls in play, and we now believe there are better metrics than DIPS/FIP out there that account for types of batted balls and the fact that pitchers do have some control.

I guess the point I'm making is that even what we deem as proof now winds up being wrong as we understand it further. Sometimes advances we thought we made turn out to take us further away from the truth. So for that reason, one should not constitute stats as "proof" but rather tentative 'evidence' that should still be open for some debate. And to those that are tired of the debate, let them pick the poison they choose and if they don't agree, c'est la vie.

[RedEye]

There's no question that this has been a historic problem on this site. In fact I don't think it was ever worse than the days of Adam Dunn and the arguments quickly turned away from Dunn the player to "my stats are superior to your stats". When it gets to that point then we're really no longer talking about baseball and the conversation needs to be abandoned

I understand what you are getting at, but at the same time it is a bit confusing. Stats are what we use to measure and to describe the game we all love: baseball. To take them away is to take away the main point of this forum, is it not? I suppose we could talk about Dunn's training regimen or his baserunning strategy or something like that -- but as soon as we try to assess what we saying, we run into the stats thing again.

[Rojo]

So for that reason, one should not constitute stats as "proof" but rather tentative 'evidence' that should still be open for some debate.

Thanks. I was trying to make this point without knowing that this was the point I was trying to make. (I think).

[westofyou]

Let's see some say the stat guys are overbearing, some also feel that every Cardinal is a steroid user, or every LaRussa player, or everyone who hits a bunch of HRs is a user.

Some folks find that annoying too.

Que sera.... this debate about Redzone bad, stat guys bad, RBIs bad, snark bad, Batting average bad is the Swallows of Capistrano, it shows up during every season, often when the Reds are teetering.

[Rojo]

Stats are what we use to measure and to describe the game we all love: baseball.

Measure and describe imperfectly. The map's not the territory.

[Brutus]

Thanks. I was trying to make this point without knowing that this was the point I was trying to make. (I think).

That was how I took your comments. I don't know if it came off that way to Dom or not, but it came across that way for me.