Sabermetrics Forum?

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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

Exactly.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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]

Originally Posted by GoReds33

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]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

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.

[RedsManRick]

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]

100% against it.

GL

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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]

I think this one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard of.

[vaticanplum]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by improbus

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]

Originally Posted by jojo

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

[jojo]

Originally Posted by degenerate10

That forum name might as well be Run Producers

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

[BoydsOfSummer]

I can't feel my face.