Sabermetrics Forum?

[westofyou]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Well said.

[SandyD]

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]

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]

I think it's a good idea. Seems like a more appropriate venue for the discussion of methodological issues.

[Sea Ray]

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]

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]

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]

If someone would like to create a FAQ on the subject, I would have no problem archiving it and listing it on the site.