I think its time we all named some great players that the Stathead faggots just dont understand with their faggot ass zorp and homometrics. Players that help a team win games on the field rather than on baseball reference or statfags.com. Players like Juan Pierre, who hit .292 in 2006 and stole 58 bases. lets see the stathead faggots line up and beat the throw from the catcher like that! who's on your Fuck the Stathead Faggots All Star Team?
This is a masterful post. Well done, SKO.
For those who may be wondering what they've walked into:
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com
Read and enjoy.
Chone Figgins. He put up 231 H+R+SB last year in less than a full season. I bet none of you statfags could even do that in a T-ball league full of statfags. And before you statfags come back with your GORP and your QUAP I'll just warn you that there's no better measure of hot meaty masculinity than H+R+SB.
Fuckin A' RV! Those are numbers you can chest bump in the locker room shower to!
Rickey Henderson? (http://tinyurl.com/7q3dkj)
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
Andre Dawson.
Shawon Dunston. That guy is a winner, as evidenced by his robust fan following.
you know what, Zed, you statfaggot, the dunston fans actually made a real, cardboard sign and took it to the game! they didn't sit on a statfaggot message board making statfaggy comments about dunston's zorp while they applied acne cream to their faggot faces. real fan support is in the stands, not on the net!
PPX is gonna be so tweaked when he sees you faggots mocking him like this.
Bobby F. Scales
Jason Varitek is the best catcher in the AL, second best all-time (CAAAAARLTON!!!!) and he's getting screwed--SCREWED--because of that asshole, Scott Boras. Dude deserves $10mil a year for what he does for the SAWX. FCKUFING STATGAFS!
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
PPX is gonna be so tweaked when he sees you faggots mocking him like this.
MONKEY.
ARAB.
NOBAMA NOBAMA NOWHAMMY STOP
Is faggot still an insult? Or is RKO simply stating fact?
I proudly stand behind the only empirical measurement that matters.
(300 - body weight) + (70 - height in inches) + (total whiteness) + (cubic CM of facial hair) = GRIT
If loving GRIT makes me a stathead faggot, then dammit, which why is North Halsted?
Quote from: Lance Dicksons Arm on January 20, 2009, 10:21:41 PM
I proudly stand behind the only empirical measurement that matters.
(300 - body weight) + (70 - height in inches) + (total whiteness) + (cubic CM of facial hair) = GRIT
If loving GRIT makes me a stathead faggot, then dammit, which why is North Halsted?
Ahhh... My favorite part of Chicago
Quote from: 5laky on January 20, 2009, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 20, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
PPX is gonna be so tweaked when he sees you faggots mocking him like this.
MONKEY.
ARAB.
NOBAMA NOBAMA NOWHAMMY STOP
No... Seriously.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/thank-god-hillary-won/
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
OBP? CuntBP, more like. You're a fucking statfaggot in disguise! Get him, lads!
Quote from: Tonker on January 21, 2009, 03:10:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
OBP? CuntBP, more like. You're a fucking statfaggot in disguise! Get him, lads!
Lads?
That sounds like FOREIGN STATFAGTO TALK!
String 'im up!
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2009, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 21, 2009, 03:10:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
OBP? CuntBP, more like. You're a fucking statfaggot in disguise! Get him, lads!
Lads?
That sounds like FOREIGN STATFAGTO TALK!
String 'im up!
Let's make litter outta these literati!
Welcome to the party, pal? (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774)
I didn't know where else to put this, and didn't feel like it warranted starting a new thread.
If anyone of you statfaggots want a job writing about baseball..., click here. (http://www.rotoworld.com/content/features/column.aspx?sport=MLB&columnid=127&&articleid=32097)
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2009, 03:31:46 PM
I think its time we all named some great players that the Stathead faggots just dont understand with their faggot ass zorp and homometrics. Players that help a team win games on the field rather than on baseball reference or statfags.com. Players like Juan Pierre, who hit .292 in 2006 and stole 58 bases. lets see the stathead faggots line up and beat the throw from the catcher like that! who's on your Fuck the Stathead Faggots All Star Team?
This.
You statFAGGOTS need to realize the Cubs led the league in ZORP and still have no World Series. Point me, STATFAGGOTS zero. The reason the Cubs didn't win shit is because they're not close knit. Hell, they don't even share hotel rooms. Even Selfish Soriano has his shitty RBI total gets his own suite on road trips. When I played legion, we played in a tournament in another state and we shared 4 to a room. Something you homo's can't understand is bonding with guys while taking shits in another teammates bathroom, falling asleep in each other's arms after an RBI-less game, or making prank phone calls. But you statfaggots wouldn't understand. To help you pussies, I did some faggoty research for you:
Mark Derosa roomed with Jim Edmonds: 8 RBI's+RUNS
Derrek Lee + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Aramis Ramirez + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Alfonso Soriano + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
You guys are the biggest bunch of faggot pussies I have ever seen. Grow a big set of manly luscious balls before you reply or don't reply at all.
Quote from: MGRW on January 23, 2009, 02:34:55 PM
You statFAGGOTS need to realize the Cubs led the league in ZORP and still have no World Series. Point me, STATFAGGOTS zero. The reason the Cubs didn't win shit is because they're not close knit. Hell, they don't even share hotel rooms. Even Selfish Soriano has his shitty RBI total gets his own suite on road trips. When I played legion, we played in a tournament in another state and we shared 4 to a room. Something you homo's can't understand is bonding with guys while taking shits in another teammates bathroom, falling asleep in each other's arms after an RBI-less game, or making prank phone calls. But you statfaggots wouldn't understand. To help you pussies, I did some faggoty research for you:
Mark Derosa roomed with Jim Edmonds: 8 RBI's+RUNS
Derrek Lee + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Aramis Ramirez + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Alfonso Soriano + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
You guys are the biggest bunch of faggot pussies I have ever seen. Grow a big set of manly luscious balls before you reply or don't reply at all.
SAP Y'ALL. DANG! Listen to this guy, you stratomaggots!
Quote from: MGRW on January 23, 2009, 02:34:55 PM
You statFAGGOTS need to realize the Cubs led the league in ZORP and still have no World Series. Point me, STATFAGGOTS zero. The reason the Cubs didn't win shit is because they're not close knit. Hell, they don't even share hotel rooms. Even Selfish Soriano has his shitty RBI total gets his own suite on road trips. When I played legion, we played in a tournament in another state and we shared 4 to a room. Something you homo's can't understand is bonding with guys while taking shits in another teammates bathroom, falling asleep in each other's arms after an RBI-less game, or making prank phone calls. But you statfaggots wouldn't understand. To help you pussies, I did some faggoty research for you:
Mark Derosa roomed with Jim Edmonds: 8 RBI's+RUNS
Derrek Lee + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Aramis Ramirez + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
Alfonso Soriano + No Roommate: 0 RBI's+Runs
You guys are the biggest bunch of faggot pussies I have ever seen. Grow a big set of manly luscious balls before you reply or don't reply at all.
I tenderly nestled up to a guy on the train today. Came into work and I got a fucking raise. Top that you stat-loving manpanzees.
I fucking love this thread. MGRW's first post might be the greatest crossover from the SB ever.
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2009, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 21, 2009, 03:10:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
OBP? CuntBP, more like. You're a fucking statfaggot in disguise! Get him, lads!
Lads?
That sounds like FOREIGN STATFAGTO TALK!
String 'im up!
People who say "String 'im up" should be strung up.
Quote from: CBStew on January 23, 2009, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: Jon on January 21, 2009, 11:29:00 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 21, 2009, 03:10:28 AM
Quote from: BH on January 20, 2009, 03:50:25 PM
Johnny Damon only wins ballgames. His career OBP is .353 and he brings mellow to the clubhouse.
OBP? CuntBP, more like. You're a fucking statfaggot in disguise! Get him, lads!
Lads?
That sounds like FOREIGN STATFAGTO TALK!
String 'im up!
People who say "String 'im up" should be strung up.
What an Elitist California Statfaggot comment.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ard.hU.P1xqulMkOg5Ai70Y5nYcB?slug=ap-cubssale&prov=ap&type=lgns
Shit.
Your 2009 Cubs STATFAG owner:
"He knows Ricketts wasn't just a fan, but could recite Rick Sutcliffe's 1984 statistics by rote (20-6, 3.64 ERA)."
Sutcliffe had a beard though. And facial hair+wins+packs of marlboros smoked is THE BEST WAY TO MEASURE A PITCHER, YOU ZORPING FAGGOTS! NAME ME ONE FUCKING STATISTIC BETTER!
Quote from: 5laky on January 23, 2009, 02:50:04 PM
I tenderly nestled up to a guy on the train today. Came into work and I got a fucking raise. Top that you stat-loving manpanzees.
I let him fuck my face.
The All Stars..
Catcher: AJ Pierzynski: All you statfaggots wanna hate on him " his OBP is only .312, and for his career its only .326", well guess what faggots? NOBODY FUCKING CARES YOU DICK LOVING QUEERS! Pierzynski hit .281 last year with 13 home runs and 60 RBIS, plus 66 runs. Plus he's a fucking GAMER who always gets in the other teams heads! You wouldn't understand that cuz it can't be measured with your faggot ZORP and QUIP and BAAAS or whatever, but other teams HATE To play against AJ! SO RAM YOUR THE WARMTH OF YOUR MOUTH OVER MY PHALLUS, FAGGOTS!
1B: Nick Swisher: the statfaggots will say that his .219/.332/.410 last year sucked according to HOMOMETRICS, but look at 24 homers, 69 rbis, and 86 runs, for a respectable total of 179 total runs. NAME ME ONE STATISTIC THAT CONTRIBUTES TO SCORING MORE THAN RUNS, YOU FAGGOTS! Just one!
2B: Robinson Cano: "But his OPS was only .715 last year!" What. the. fuck. ever. FAGGOTS! you're talkin to a guy with a .271 avg. 14 homers, and 72 RBIS, plus 70 runs, for a 156 total runs! Bet you're all wishin you knew baseball the way I do! I know baseball so hard you'll have to concede the superiority of my virile manhood! God damn I need a FUCKING SHOWER! OWNING THE STATFAGGOTS ROCKS MY FUCKING WORLD!
3B: Adrian Beltre: "A .784 OPS is horrible for a middle of the order corner infielder!" SAY THAT TO MY FUCKING FACE AND I WILL SLATHER YOU IN OIL AND WRESTLE YOUR ASS TO THE GROUND, STATFAGGOT! 25 home runs faggots! NAME ONE STATISTIC MORE GUARANTEED TO HELP YOUR TEAM SCORE RUNS THAN HOME RUNS! JUST ONE! GOD DAMN I NEED A FUCKING CHEST BUMP!
SS: Ryan Theriot: GOD! I'm so fucking tired of you homometricians tryin to tell me Ryan Theriot is replaceable! He his .307 and he is the FUCKING SPARK PLUG! You faggots don't realize what a player like Theriot brings to the game because you've never played grab ass in the showers and run out onto the field ready to STRIVE FOR VICTORY TOGETHER! If Ryan Theriot had played legion ball with me and the boys you can beat he'd earn more ass smacks than anyone! HUSTLE! GRIT! I AM SALIVATING WITH THE THOUGHT OF A "W" EARNED THROUGH SWEATY, GRITTY TEAMWORK!
LF: Carl Crawford: What? You thinkin "a .319 OBP sucks for a top of the order guy!" or ".718 OPS for a corner outfielder??" Here's my retort: GO FUCK A DUDE YOU IGNORANT CUM SWILLING HOMO! How's a .273 avg. and 25 stolen bases hit ya? Bet they don't mean shit to you because you couldn't out run my legion ball DH, OGRE! Well guess what! THAT GUY FUCKING RULES! YOU CAN NOT DOMINATE A KEG STAND THE WAY OGRE DOES!!!!! He got a fucking scholarship to play for free at the community college, WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU FAGGOTS DONE! I can't fucking WAIT till ogre and I run a train on some bitch, high fivin all the way. Nothin like TEAMWORK!
CF: Juan Fucking Pierre: " Wah wah .326 OBP! Wha wha .655 OPS!" Fuck the fuck off, faggots. He stole 40 bags this year, thats 40 fuckin singles he turned into doubles through hustle, how's your ZORP Gonna calculate THAT? Faggots.
RF: Corey Hart: 20 homers + 91 RBIS+23 SB+76 Runs= 210 ways to FUCK YOU STATHEAD FAGGOTS UP! Say one word about his .759 OPS and I will come over to your house and videotape my guns as I force you to take my manhood in your ass, you queer ass zorp loving faggot!
FUCK! All this statfag DOMINATION has absolutely wrecked my shit, time to go LIFT. Let me know when one of you faggots wants to STEP INTO THE BOX! I WILL STRIKE YOU OUT ON THREE FUCKING PITCHES, FAGGOTS!
TDubbs is getting hard.
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2009, 01:25:38 PM
3B: Adrian Beltre: "A .784 OPS is horrible for a middle of the order corner infielder!" SAY THAT TO MY FUCKING FACE AND I WILL SLATHER YOU IN OIL AND WRESTLE YOUR ASS TO THE GROUND, STATFAGGOT! 25 home runs faggots! NAME ONE STATISTIC MORE GUARANTEED TO HELP YOUR TEAM SCORE RUNS THAN HOME RUNS! JUST ONE! GOD DAMN I NEED A FUCKING CHEST BUMP!
Only some queerometrician would give this to someone like Adrian Beltre. Mark Rennolds is a brainful ballplayer and a lot of the time he hits the ball harder than most other baseball players who've ever played.
He's also faster and hits more homers and drives in more RUNS than Adrian. That's like 6 tools that he's better at than BELTRE. He probably also has a planer which are kind of going out of style so that's like 7. You know whose team had 82 wins? THE DAIMONDBACKS! Thats who. You know who played for them? MATT REYNOLDS! That's who. Adrian Beltre played for the Mariners and they had like 200 losses. LOL IS THAT BASEBALL?!
MAROL REYNOL
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080224&content_id=2387105&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=sea&partnered=rss_sea
"Something you probably didn't know might explain why Beltre's defense is so good. He never wears a protective cup. "
Beltre's such a bad ass he doesn't even protect his junk! NONE OF YOU QUEERS UNDERSTAND THE EROTIC SENSATION OF TIGHT PANTS ON YOUR NAKED SATCHEL! ADRIAN BELTRE IS A TRUE BASEBALL PLAYER!
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2009, 03:13:20 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080224&content_id=2387105&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=sea&partnered=rss_sea
"Something you probably didn't know might explain why Beltre's defense is so good. He never wears a protective cup. "
Beltre's such a bad ass he doesn't even protect his junk! NONE OF YOU QUEERS UNDERSTAND THE EROTIC SENSATION OF TIGHT PANTS ON YOUR NAKED SATCHEL! ADRIAN BELTRE IS A TRUE BASEBALL PLAYER!
Fuck that pussy-assed faggot shit. Aramis plays third hanging brain.
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2009, 06:08:10 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2009, 03:13:20 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080224&content_id=2387105&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=sea&partnered=rss_sea
"Something you probably didn't know might explain why Beltre's defense is so good. He never wears a protective cup. "
Beltre's such a bad ass he doesn't even protect his junk! NONE OF YOU QUEERS UNDERSTAND THE EROTIC SENSATION OF TIGHT PANTS ON YOUR NAKED SATCHEL! ADRIAN BELTRE IS A TRUE BASEBALL PLAYER!
Fuck that pussy-assed faggot shit. Aramis plays third hanging brain.
I don't see the big deal.
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
That's some good perspective right there. I'll just add that in all my years I've never seen an Excel formula hit a bases-clearing triple or rub some neosporin on a teammate's infected boil.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Your post is the most awesome because it's real.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
Written like a typical limp dick homo.
Well, drop your drawers and reach for the dirt, Charlie.
Daddy's gonna show you a thing or two about linear weights.
Quote from: RV on January 26, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
That's some good perspective right there. I'll just add that in all my years I've never seen an Excel formula hit a bases-clearing triple or rub some neosporin on a teammate's infected boil.
Fuck you MATH FUCK ASS.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Did you ever throw a bounce pass to a sallaD player? Faggot.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
You can do all your fucking math and stats while you squat to piss, you fucking latte-drinking Oprah watcher.
Quote from: RV on January 26, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
That's some good perspective right there. I'll just add that in all my years I've never seen an Excel formula hit a bases-clearing triple or rub some neosporin on a teammate's infected boil.
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Circle gets the square root of 64 multiplied by 7 minus 4 equals a win for me and math.
Fellas, we can argue statistics until we blew in our faces, but it's not gonna change the perplexion of the game as it stands right now. But, I'll do it if that's what it's gonna take to turn some heads. It's on like donkey dong.
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2009, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
You can do all your fucking math and stats while you squat to piss, you fucking latte-drinking Oprah watcher.
... writes our resident ballroom dancer.
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:38:49 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
Written like a typical limp dick homo.
Well, drop your drawers and reach for the dirt, Charlie.
Daddy's gonna show you a thing or two about linear weights.
Yeah, while you're calculating the best route to invade my butt, I'm gonna be UP IN YOUR FACE.
Punching.So, add that up! You still wanna go, math wizard?
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:01 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 26, 2009, 09:42:10 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
You can do all your fucking math and stats while you squat to piss, you fucking latte-drinking Oprah watcher.
... writes our resident ballroom dancer.
I go to the ballroom and dance with GIRLS, you fucking ham-slammer.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: RV on January 26, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
That's some good perspective right there. I'll just add that in all my years I've never seen an Excel formula hit a bases-clearing triple or rub some neosporin on a teammate's infected boil.
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Circle gets the square root of 64 multiplied by 7 minus 4 equals a win for me and math.
Fellas, we can argue statistics until we blew in our faces, but it's not gonna change the perplexion of the game as it stands right now. But, I'll do it if that's what it's gonna take to turn some heads. It's on like donkey dong.
10 things even worse than Alfonso Soriano:
1-9. This post.
10. Communism.
Excel Spreadsheet
- Can't pull up socks to BALLPLAYER levels
- Can't throw the ball all the way to almost a few feet away from a point twenty yards away from second base
- Can't rub dirt off its uniform
- Can't even WEAR a uniform without some ghey color formula shit
- Can't smile all the time
- Can't get 200 hits!!!!
Juan Pierre
- Can
- Can, barely
- Can
- Can
- Can
- Can
"ADD" THAT UP YOUR ASSHOLES, STATFAGGOTS!
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
The short guy in the stained shirt was wondering if we could extend for an hour.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
I hope you like hugging.
'Cause I'm coming to see you.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: RV on January 26, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:32:01 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:26:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:23:17 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
This has all the makings of a wonderful day at Desipio.
That is, if you faggots don't go and fuck it all up.
Which you probably will.
Oh yeah? How do you know that? I bet you added up some probabilitizations or something, statfaggot. So, here is some numbers you can understand: you should 100% fuck off, nerd.
What in the world? What is wrong with you guys? Listen, statistics can be a beautiful thing and they don't lie. I thought you guys loved to add and divide. Remember that time RV taught me to subtract. NOW, I can't stop doing it! I think we all just need to step back and realize that math is here to stay. Personally, I feel a lot---A LOT---better about my cubs manager if he doesn't have to just WATCH the game to figure things out. Sure, that's ONE way to do it, but what about him looking at the scorebard and seeing that Aramis Ramirez has a lot of homers and saying "that guy has power...he's one of our power hitters...he should hit 4th or somewhere"? I think that's a plus(ADDITION). We can all get along. It's not like some guy's talking about being ghey or something. We're all dudes in here and out there.
That's some good perspective right there. I'll just add that in all my years I've never seen an Excel formula hit a bases-clearing triple or rub some neosporin on a teammate's infected boil.
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Circle gets the square root of 64 multiplied by 7 minus 4 equals a win for me and math.
Fellas, we can argue statistics until we blew in our faces, but it's not gonna change the perplexion of the game as it stands right now. But, I'll do it if that's what it's gonna take to turn some heads. It's on like donkey dong.
10 things even worse than Alfonso Soriano:
1-9. This post.
10. Communism.
I'd love to give you my formula describing why Communism is NOT worse than Soriano OR my post, but you'd probably screw up the parameters with your STUPID FACES.
AND, according to my calculations, Soriano isn't even THAT good OR bad. Especially on Wednesdays, when he is perfectly league average in many statistical numbers during day games and slightly LESS SO in night games at home. Matter of point, if it were me, I would look at his historically best days and play him then. THEN, I would figure up the same formula for EACH player on the cubs and play said player on the correspondingly BEST days while SITTING him on his historically WORST day of the week. I would have SET WEEK lineups with positions so there would be no surprised because I have proved numerically that players in set lineup positions do historically better than those that DON'T play everyday. And I did it all on my laptop calculator with a pen and pencil and ruler and dirty hair grease. I have a mohawk that's quadratically correct, you caveman.
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
I'm interested in this session. Couple questions, however . .
1. Do I need to provide my own ding kong?
2. Am I bringing the Jolly Ranchers?
3. If my mommy can't pick me up until 4:45, can we just chillax until she gets there?
4. When is this free weekend?
5. How much does it cost?
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:59:49 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
I hope you like hugging.
'Cause I'm coming to see you.
I do like to hug. I give it a slightly lower score than Frenching. I hope YOu like a "nerd" adding and subtracting all up over your butt at 2 in the afternoon, pal. Again, it's on like donkey dong! I will destroy your state of mine exponentially.
Quote from: Eli on January 26, 2009, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Your post is the most awesome because it's real.
Yeah, it is. I can't pass up a chance to rip Dustfuck, even if it's mildly out of context.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 26, 2009, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Your post is the most awesome because it's real.
Yeah, it is. I can't pass up a chance to rip Dustfuck, even if it's mildly out of context.
I like the way you call him Dustfuck, when his real name is Dusty. I mean, I can swee what you're doing, while you're doing it and after you did it.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 09:49:06 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Circle gets the square root of 64 multiplied by 7 minus 4 equals a win for me and math.
Fellas, we can argue statistics until we blew in our faces, but it's not gonna change the perplexion of the game as it stands right now. But, I'll do it if that's what it's gonna take to turn some heads. It's on like donkey dong.
10 things even worse than Alfonso Soriano:
1-9. This post.
10. Communism.
I'd love to give you my formula describing why Communism is NOT worse than Soriano OR my post, but you'd probably screw up the parameters with your STUPID FACES.
AND, according to my calculations, Soriano isn't even THAT good OR bad. Especially on Wednesdays, when he is perfectly league average in many statistical numbers during day games and slightly LESS SO in night games at home. Matter of point, if it were me, I would look at his historically best days and play him then. THEN, I would figure up the same formula for EACH player on the cubs and play said player on the correspondingly BEST days while SITTING him on his historically WORST day of the week. I would have SET WEEK lineups with positions so there would be no surprised because I have proved numerically that players in set lineup positions do historically better than those that DON'T play everyday. And I did it all on my laptop calculator with a pen and pencil and ruler and dirty hair grease. I have a mohawk that's quadratically correct, you caveman.
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know
baseball. But you, man? You just know
math.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:59:49 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:52:39 AM
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 09:44:50 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 09:43:19 AM
Yeah, but how did you KNOW it was a triple? What? I couldn't hear you. Yeah. That's right. Math.
Who needs math to know a guy ran all the way to left base?
But without math, then how would you know how many bases he passed to get there. Plus one. Because that's where he is and he gets credit for that one, too. That's pre-algebraic equation stuff that I'm not sure you're ready for since you seem to be a beginner math person. I'd like to spend some time together alone with you in a private place and teach you some math the old-fashioned way, buddy. I got a motel room, a chalkboard, 3 pieces of chalk, two fists of math-loving goodness, air, and opportunity. Make your mark, cowboy, and we'll teach this pony how to fly 3 times as high. I'll hit you so hard, your ding kong will divide by 6. Add it all up and this is the Gauntlet. School is in session and it doesn't let out until 3:20. P.m.!
I hope you like hugging.
'Cause I'm coming to see you.
I do like to hug. I give it a slightly lower score than Frenching. I hope YOu like a "nerd" adding and subtracting all up over your butt at 2 in the afternoon, pal. Again, it's on like donkey dong! I will destroy your state of mine exponentially.
It's a deal, then.
You set up the net, I'll bring the Capri Sun.
We can leave our shirts behind.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
Shit, you forgot about February.
Now start over.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
How about you ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTIONS!?!?!? I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED AND ANSWERS THAT NEED TO BE QUESTIONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111 KNOW WHAT I MEAN BRO?
Quote from: TDubbs on January 26, 2009, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
How about you ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTIONS!?!?!? I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED AND ANSWERS THAT NEED TO BE QUESTIONED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111 KNOW WHAT I MEAN BRO?
If you don't stop eYELLING at me, then I'm going to write a formula to MELT your PECKER,
BRO.
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
I have no idea what that means. That doesn't make any sense. It's like you have no idea how BASEBALL is played. All you stat lovers are like a parroty of yourself. I don't know if I should make fun of you or just PITY you.
Quote from: TDubbs on January 26, 2009, 10:09:53 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 26, 2009, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Your post is the most awesome because it's real.
Yeah, it is. I can't pass up a chance to rip Dustfuck, even if it's mildly out of context.
I like the way you call him Dustfuck, when his real name is Dusty. I mean, I can swee what you're doing, while you're doing it and after you did it.
His real name is Johnnie. Dusty is actually an acronym for Dumb Underachieving Skipper, Total Yutz.
Dusty played the right way, dude.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 10:40:03 AM
Quote from: TDubbs on January 26, 2009, 10:09:53 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 10:08:51 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 26, 2009, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Your post is the most awesome because it's real.
Yeah, it is. I can't pass up a chance to rip Dustfuck, even if it's mildly out of context.
I like the way you call him Dustfuck, when his real name is Dusty. I mean, I can swee what you're doing, while you're doing it and after you did it.
His real name is Johnnie. Dusty is actually an acronym for Dumb Underachieving Skipper, Total Yutz.
LOL. No way jose.
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:33:25 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on January 26, 2009, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: JD on January 26, 2009, 10:00:59 AM
Understand my words if not my numbers as Bill James should have said.
Yeah, well how about you give me a formula that equals how awesome it is to see your teammate poke a seeing eye single through the left side, hustle around first, go down hard and dirty, and grab an extra bag. Or how about you tell me how many more zRBIs a player gets for chewing a big old wad of Red Man instead of those sissy Big League Chew or sunflower seeds the PC police are forcing down baseball players' throats these days. How many wins is a good old fashioned towel-snapping competition with a bunch of naked, soaped-up dudes in the locker room worth? Naked, soaped-up dudes that you'd go to war with 162 times a year.
You see, I know the answers to these questions because I know baseball. But you, man? You just know math.
I can answer your questions with answers, caveman:
1) awesome=a, teammate=t, poke=1(because it's a single), left side=6(average number of left side positions), hustle=1(these guys are professionals and hustle is a constant), hard and dirty=h*d, extra bag=.5...therefore your formula is:
(at)~1*6*1[h*d]/.5=your precious formula
2) Red Man would add 16 more zRBI to a player but subtract 2.4 years off of his career, therefore the total affectation on career stats would be minimal. Bill James's cousin did a study on this 2 years ago, Bowzer. Read your blogs.
3) 4 wins in odd years and -1 win in an even year
I have no idea what that means. That doesn't make any sense. It's like you have no idea how BASEBALL is played. All you stat lovers are like a parroty of yourself. I don't know if I should make fun of you or just PITY you.
You keep bad-mouthing stats, friend, but you know for a FACT that you use them, too. What do you do if you want to know the greatest home run hitter of all-time? You look at the stats and you know it. Otherwise, you'd probably choose Jeromy Burnitz as the all-time greatest power hitter because his arms are large, his teeth are yellow, and I know for a fact taht I saw him eat a booger once. But you'd be wrong, for the most part(it's been proven time and again that Jeromy Burnitz was only the greatest power of the second week of June 2003). Stats merely help us quantify our gut feelings and that's where we're not so different. I wouldn't make a formula for something if I didn't feel in my gut that something was true or false. Then, it's up to ME to fit the numbers to the theory. Sometimes I have to throw out some numbers when my GUT tells me that they're outliers or analytical anomalies. That's how us scientists do it. It's what makes math great. You can take whatever numbers you want and make them do whatever you want. We're like managers of a number team. Only, as you stated, I love the numbers. ANd I do. I would totally make out with a number 12 if society wasn't so narrow-minded. It's not going to happen in our lifetime, though, old timer. I'll just have to make do with manipulating the number 12. Teasing it. Diddling it when the time is right. And I know when the time is right. You say I love math. I say 'no'. I say that I LUST math and stats and numbers. I have to shift my laptop no less than 3 times the amount of a normal person when I'm using the calculator function. I won't apologize for my love, caveman. And I will fight to the bittner end to quantify it.
Did you know bees and dogs can smell fear?
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on January 26, 2009, 10:56:47 AM
Did you know bees and dogs can smell fear?
What about dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
What can they smell?
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on January 26, 2009, 10:56:47 AM
Did you know bees and dogs can smell fear?
What about dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
What can they smell?
The Robotic Richard Simmons.
Quote from: Tank on January 26, 2009, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on January 26, 2009, 10:56:47 AM
Did you know bees and dogs can smell fear?
What about dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark they shoot bees at you?
What can they smell?
The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down.
Quote from: Bonk on January 26, 2009, 09:17:24 AM
I looked through the entire link and did a search and still can't find out what the fuck ZORP is supposed to stand for.
I'm with you guys on the statfags. A friend of a friend of mine claims he can manage a baseball team better than an MLB manager using just Sabremetrics. Then again, he's a Reds fan, so he probably could do a better job than Dustfuck.
Sabremetrics stats are mildly interesting to evaluate for people that realize they're just tools, not a way for computer geeks who've never played baseball to claim they're baseball experts because they wrote a few formulas in an Excel spreadsheet.
Those faggots don't know SHIT about baseball, Bonk, because they've never lathered it up with AXE, helped each other tape up their ankles after applying soothing lotion, pushed against each other to stretch their thighs and hammy's, and stormed the field ready to TAKE IT ALL THE WAY! they've never jumped up and down on the mound, rolled around together in the grass, sprayed each other with hot sticky champagne and kegged it up all night to celebrate the third straight southeast county third district regional semifinal championship. THEY DON'T KNOW FUCK ABOUT BASEBALL, THOSE FUCKING FAGGOTS! Zorp can't replace the the smell of dirt caked on your hands as you make little clouds from smacking each others asses in celebration. Zorp can't replace what makes the game HUMAN.
Not surprising that the latte-sipping elitists in Hollyweird would make a movie about buttchugging stat sodomites.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999601.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999601.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)
Quote from: RV on February 06, 2009, 09:09:05 AM
Not surprising that the latte-sipping elitists in Hollyweird would make a movie about buttchugging stat sodomites.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999601.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999601.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)
There is no part of that movie that looks good.
Seriously, who could read that book and think "movie"?
Quote from: Dave B on February 06, 2009, 11:24:10 AM
Seriously, who could read that book and think "movie"?
Not even me.
I loved that book and still cannot for the life of me see how it would make a movie.
Crazy '08, on the other hand...
Quote from: Dave B on February 06, 2009, 11:24:10 AM
Seriously, who could read that book and think "movie"?
Wouldn't "Game of Shadows" be a better movie?
Maybe it's only loosely based on the book.
Like Adaptation.
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
Maybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
(Like that show NUMB3RS, with that one dude from Northern Exposure and that other dude from 10 Things I Hate About You.)
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 11:59:41 AM
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
I now hate you.
QuoteMaybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
Okay, you've won me back.
Has Weeb's sources confirmed whether or not Gally makes an appearance?
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 11:59:41 AM
Maybe it's only loosely based on the book.
Like Adaptation.
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
Maybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
(Like that show NUMB3RS, with that one dude from Northern Exposure and that other dude from 10 Things I Hate About You.)
And that Indian chick is just cute as hell. Almost makes me want to watch that show with the old dude who was on
Taxi.
Quote from: Fork on February 06, 2009, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 11:59:41 AM
Maybe it's only loosely based on the book.
Like Adaptation.
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
Maybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
(Like that show NUMB3RS, with that one dude from Northern Exposure and that other dude from 10 Things I Hate About You.)
And that Indian chick is just cute as hell. Almost makes me want to watch that show with the old dude who was on Taxi.
Wait... The guy from
Dear John is on that show, too?
And the Indian–German chick who played the Mexican broad on
The O.C.?
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 06, 2009, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 11:59:41 AM
Maybe it's only loosely based on the book.
Like Adaptation.
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
Maybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
(Like that show NUMB3RS, with that one dude from Northern Exposure and that other dude from 10 Things I Hate About You.)
And that Indian chick is just cute as hell. Almost makes me want to watch that show with the old dude who was on Taxi.
Wait... The guy from Dear John is on that show, too?
And the Indian–German chick who played the Mexican broad on The O.C.?
And "The Eel" from
Chicago Hope.
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Fork on February 06, 2009, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 06, 2009, 11:59:41 AM
Maybe it's only loosely based on the book.
Like Adaptation.
Or 10 Things I Hate About You.
Maybe, in Soderbergh's script, Billy Beane uses math to solve murders.
(Like that show NUMB3RS, with that one dude from Northern Exposure and that other dude from 10 Things I Hate About You.)
And that Indian chick is just cute as hell. Almost makes me want to watch that show with the old dude who was on Taxi.
Wait... The guy from Dear John is on that show, too?
And the Indian–German chick who played the Mexican broad on The O.C.?
Dear JOhn...whew. I was trying to figure out who the Indian chick was on Who's the Boss?...
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Giant wall of words.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
QuoteAnd notice how seriously the Red Sox did take defense with Pokey and Mientkiewicz. In 1986, if the Red Sox had had Mientkiewicz as a late inning replacement for Bill Buckner, they'd have broken the curse 18 years earlier.
I know Mientkiewicz has a great glove, but I don't know if he would have been a sure thing, at age 12, to field that ground ball.
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 26, 2009, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Giant wall of words.
5,270, to be exact.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 26, 2009, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Giant wall of words.
5,270, to be exact.
That's why I didn't post any quotes from it. I'd basically have to re-post the whole article, and there are size limits here, even if decorum is not a restricting factor.
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 02:11:39 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 26, 2009, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Giant wall of words.
5,270, to be exact.
That's why I didn't post any quotes from it. I'd basically have to re-post the whole article, and there are size limits here, even if decorum is not a restricting factor.
You can sum it up in one word: VINDICATION.
From what, I have no idea.
Quote from: CT III on March 26, 2009, 02:38:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 02:11:39 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 02:05:29 PM
Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on March 26, 2009, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on March 26, 2009, 01:57:58 PM
Quote from: morpheus on March 26, 2009, 01:42:54 PM
Bump. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/complete-vindication-statfags-at-ggu-proven-to-be-shameless-morons/
Enjoy, statfaggots.
That was all sorts of crazy.
Giant wall of words.
5,270, to be exact.
That's why I didn't post any quotes from it. I'd basically have to re-post the whole article, and there are size limits here, even if decorum is not a restricting factor.
You can sum it up in one word: VINDICATION.
From what, I have no idea.
Was that his angry finale as a Cub blogger?
(http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud.jpg)
I haven't even posted here in about six months, but I still feel compelled to say what a fucking train wreck that was. Holy shit.
Bump. More gold from everyone's favorite VINDICATED analyst. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/
QuoteIf you spend hours and hours of adult life complaining about BCB, Ryan Theriot, Neal Cotts, Cubs fans, and people who live in Wisconsin, you're definitely a fucking idiot, not to mention a redneck.
If you believe 70 games of Milton Bradley is more valuable than a full season of Adam Dunn and his 1.085 OPS, you might be a redneck.
Finally, if you're in your 30's, hang out all day at a Cubs blog with college kids, falsely accuse other Cubs blogs of committing real world crimes, fancy yourself a scientist when you're a mathematical nitwit, and your last name rhymes with hick... you're definitely an idiot redneck and look like this:
(http://badnewscubs.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mullet1.jpg?w=384&h=448)
"Maddog's high school yearbook photo."
Quote from: morpheus on April 24, 2009, 01:19:30 PM
Bump. More gold from everyone's favorite VINDICATED analyst. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/
QuoteIf you spend hours and hours of adult life complaining about BCB, Ryan Theriot, Neal Cotts, Cubs fans, and people who live in Wisconsin, you're definitely a fucking idiot, not to mention a redneck.
If you believe 70 games of Milton Bradley is more valuable than a full season of Adam Dunn and his 1.085 OPS, you might be a redneck.
Finally, if you're in your 30's, hang out all day at a Cubs blog with college kids, falsely accuse other Cubs blogs of committing real world crimes, fancy yourself a scientist when you're a mathematical nitwit, and your last name rhymes with hick... you're definitely an idiot redneck and look like this:
(http://badnewscubs.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mullet1.jpg?w=384&h=448)
"Maddog's high school yearbook photo."
Is Maddog JD's suave older brother?
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
Quote from: BH on April 27, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
After you purchase Desipio Premium.
Quote from: BH on April 27, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
But, if someone out there reads this and has access, please let me know... is someone talking mad shit about me or pretending to be me? I hope it's not the latter. Hate that shit.
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: BH on April 27, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
But, if someone out there reads this and has access, please let me know... is someone talking mad shit about me or pretending to be me? I hope it's not the latter. Hate that shit.
No shit.
Quote from: Tenk on April 27, 2009, 12:47:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: BH on April 27, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
But, if someone out there reads this and has access, please let me know... is someone talking mad shit about me or pretending to be me? I hope it's not the latter. Hate that shit.
No shit.
I will strike you the fuck out and wrestle you to the dirt like a taut pre-teen boy, you cotton-picking hick faggot.
Don't miss the exchange in the comments between one of our own and the editor-in-chief. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/are-we-as-good-as-the-cardinals/#comments
QuoteAnd finally, you stupid fuck... I'll tell you the same thing I tell all the dumbfuck statfucks at ACB... you read every fucking word of this blog because it's the best. It's the best for knowing what wins baseball games AND it's the most entertaining, period. I write it, you read it. You love reading it.
But, do you think I'd ever read a fucking word of any bullshit you'd write about baseball? Hell fuck no you little fucking piece of shit. There's the proof, the discrepancy in talent.
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Quote from: Tenk on April 27, 2009, 12:47:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: BH on April 27, 2009, 10:56:31 AM
Quote from: morpheus on April 27, 2009, 10:33:01 AM
Update. http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/you-might-be-a-redneck/#more-358
QuoteOh, by the way, who or what the fuck is Desipio? I swear, someone links from that site's chatroom to here every fucking day. However, when I tried to sign up to see what the fuck was going on, I never heard back. I'm sure it's a terrible loss.
Does Desipio have a chatroom now? That corner of the Internet is so dark that I've never seen it.
Invitation only.
But, if someone out there reads this and has access, please let me know... is someone talking mad shit about me or pretending to be me? I hope it's not the latter. Hate that shit.
No shit.
I will strike you the fuck out and wrestle you to the dirt like a taut pre-teen boy, you cotton-picking hick faggot.
Wait - who's the real Tank, now? I'm confused.
I don't know either!
QuoteHerein lies the truth. My record stands for itself. It's excellent. Read the archives of this blog and you will find nothing but predictive excellence. To the contrary, your faggot friends say the dumbest shit I've ever read like, "Carlos Marmol should be dfa'd" or "The Jason Kendall deal was one of Hendry's finest moves". Meanwhile, [bozos' faggot friends (read: "us")] constantly patronize BCB as if they're any better. They're exactly the same as BCB only they speak of baseball in a different language - fictional, arcane, and irrelevant stats. But their insight is equally poor.
Oh, how humiliating.
Quote from: ChuckD on April 28, 2009, 09:23:37 AM
QuoteHerein lies the truth. My record stands for itself. It's excellent. Read the archives of this blog and you will find nothing but predictive excellence. To the contrary, your faggot friends say the dumbest shit I've ever read like, "Carlos Marmol should be dfa'd" or "The Jason Kendall deal was one of Hendry's finest moves". Meanwhile, [bozos' faggot friends (read: "us")] constantly patronize BCB as if they're any better. They're exactly the same as BCB only they speak of baseball in a different language - fictional, arcane, and irrelevant stats. But their insight is equally poor.
Oh, how humiliating.
I don't think they know that dude at all. (Did I do that right?)
Quote from: Tenk on April 27, 2009, 12:47:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 27, 2009, 11:24:36 AM
But, if someone out there reads this and has access, please let me know... is someone talking mad shit about me or pretending to be me? I hope it's not the latter. Hate that shit.
No shit.
Quote from: Tonk on April 28, 2009, 09:01:35 AM
Wait - who's the real Tank, now? I'm confused.
Quote from: Taank on April 28, 2009, 09:13:05 AM
I don't know either!
THERE ARE TOO MANY TANKS ON THIS FIELD!
Quote from: ChuckD on April 28, 2009, 09:23:37 AM
QuoteHerein lies the truth. My record stands for itself. It's excellent. Read the archives of this blog and you will find nothing but predictive excellence. To the contrary, your faggot friends say the dumbest shit I've ever read like, "Carlos Marmol should be dfa'd" or "The Jason Kendall deal was one of Hendry's finest moves". Meanwhile, [bozos' faggot friends (read: "us")] constantly patronize BCB as if they're any better. They're exactly the same as BCB only they speak of baseball in a different language - fictional, arcane, and irrelevant stats. But their insight is equally poor.
Oh, how humiliating.
How can you "predict excellence" on his blog without the use of statfaggotry to demonstrate past excellence?
It's my understanding that this guy has tried to get a login to this messageboard but never got a response. Let me be the first to say that I hope this administrative error gets corrected. Andy?
Quote from: morpheus on May 01, 2009, 10:38:02 AM
It's my understanding that this guy has tried to get a login to this messageboard but never got a response. Let me be the first to say that I hope this administrative error gets corrected. Andy?
Indeed he did...
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6591.msg165259#msg165259
Bump.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/
The comments are truly awesome.
Quote from: morpheus on May 20, 2009, 07:47:20 AM
Bump.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/
The comments are truly awesome.
Now THIS is entertainment.
Quote from: Slakee on May 20, 2009, 09:08:34 AM
Quote from: morpheus on May 20, 2009, 07:47:20 AM
Bump.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/
The comments are truly awesome.
Now THIS is entertainment.
One of his sycophants says
QuoteThis is the best Cubs blog on the internet! I can say that without a doubt, wanna know why? Well, I'm not going to tell you.
How can anyone hope to compete with debating skills like that? Thrill should just give up now.
Our good buddy Mike (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774) doesn't seem to understand how his internet works, but no matter...
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1375
QuoteOne final note for my evening...
Whatever the fuck Desipio is... it's the biggest collection of pussies on the face of the earth. These idiots link to this site constantly, every fucking day, but keep their comments private. Not a one of them has come and told me who the fuck he is and what site he's from. Shit talking faggots. These losers make GGU look like the knights of the fucking round table.
But, you know what... let them keep talking shit in private. They probably know already... that I'd never read their bullshit... while they'll keep reading this site religiously. They're probably a bunch of evangelical faggots.
And for my true fans, my next post will be about Ryan Theriot, the faggots at GGU, and my current favorite, PMayo – Head Faggot of the White Moral Authority. He's got to be one of the world's all-time phoniest faggots. He's so fucking phony that I bet you mirrors don't ever reflect his sorry ass back at him. There's nothing there.
That's clearly what we are, whatever we are.
Quote from: Tank on May 21, 2009, 12:36:16 AM
Our good buddy Mike (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774) doesn't seem to understand how his internet works, but no matter...
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1375
QuoteOne final note for my evening...
Whatever the fuck Desipio is... it's the biggest collection of pussies on the face of the earth. These idiots link to this site constantly, every fucking day, but keep their comments private. Not a one of them has come and told me who the fuck he is and what site he's from. Shit talking faggots. These losers make GGU look like the knights of the fucking round table.
But, you know what... let them keep talking shit in private. They probably know already... that I'd never read their bullshit... while they'll keep reading this site religiously. They're probably a bunch of evangelical faggots.
And for my true fans, my next post will be about Ryan Theriot, the faggots at GGU, and my current favorite, PMayo – Head Faggot of the White Moral Authority. He's got to be one of the world's all-time phoniest faggots. He's so fucking phony that I bet you mirrors don't ever reflect his sorry ass back at him. There's nothing there.
That's clearly what we are, whatever we are.
There's no way this guy is on the level.
Quote from: Tank on May 21, 2009, 12:36:16 AM
Our good buddy Mike (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774) doesn't seem to understand how his internet works, but no matter...
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1375
QuoteOne final note for my evening...
Whatever the fuck Desipio is... it's the biggest collection of pussies on the face of the earth. These idiots link to this site constantly, every fucking day, but keep their comments private. Not a one of them has come and told me who the fuck he is and what site he's from. Shit talking faggots. These losers make GGU look like the knights of the fucking round table.
But, you know what... let them keep talking shit in private. They probably know already... that I'd never read their bullshit... while they'll keep reading this site religiously. They're probably a bunch of evangelical faggots.
And for my true fans, my next post will be about Ryan Theriot, the faggots at GGU, and my current favorite, PMayo – Head Faggot of the White Moral Authority. He's got to be one of the world's all-time phoniest faggots. He's so fucking phony that I bet you mirrors don't ever reflect his sorry ass back at him. There's nothing there.
That's clearly what we are, whatever we are.
Wait, so PMayo is such a phony faggot that he's turned into a vampire?
As Morpheus pointed out to me, the guy has an account here, but has never posted on it, and claims he doesn't know what his login credentials are.
So I e-mailed him so he could join our merry band of pussies.
To: badnewscubs@gmail.com
Hey there,
You were approved in January, but you've never logged in. If you don't know what your password is, you're shit out of luck because I can't tell you what it is. So if you know what it is, log in and you can hang out with all of us pussies. If you don't, then you'll have to sign up with a different user name.
The message board isn't private. Anybody can sign up. You didn't used to have to have a log in to read the comments, but for some reason the message board software doesn't like the CBS-2 ads and it disabled the ability for guests to read the messages without a login. So it was either take down the ads or have people log in to see the board. That didn't really seem like that tough of a decision.
But then again, what do I know, I've never welcomed Ryan Freel to the "Chi."
Quote from: Andy on May 21, 2009, 08:45:43 AM
As Morpheus pointed out to me, the guy has an account here, but has never posted on it, and claims he doesn't know what his login credentials are.
So I e-mailed him so he could join our merry band of pussies.
To: badnewscubs@gmail.com
Hey there,
You were approved in January, but you've never logged in. If you don't know what your password is, you're shit out of luck because I can't tell you what it is. So if you know what it is, log in and you can hang out with all of us pussies. If you don't, then you'll have to sign up with a different user name.
The message board isn't private. Anybody can sign up. You didn't used to have to have a log in to read the comments, but for some reason the message board software doesn't like the CBS-2 ads and it disabled the ability for guests to read the messages without a login. So it was either take down the ads or have people log in to see the board. That didn't really seem like that tough of a decision.
But then again, what do I know, I've never welcomed Ryan Freel to the "Chi."
Thanks a million...
If his post on Theriot makes this "pussy" mad, I will kick him the dick.
Quote from: Dave B on May 21, 2009, 09:23:13 AM
If his post on Theriot makes this "pussy" mad, I will kick him the dick.
I doubt it will.
This winner is on his blogroll...
http://www.turning-two.com/
QuoteRyan Theriot is the heart and soul of the Chicago Cubs and hopefully the heart and soul of years to come. Not since Ryne Sandberg (23) or Mark Grace (17), have we been as excited and dedicated to a Cubs player as we are to "The Riot" (2). His determination, character, grit, and skills make us huge fans! For a more in-depth reason as to why we love him, read our anatomy of Ryan Theriot Love blog. (http://www.turning-two.com/2007/08/anatomy-of-lovefor-ryan-theriot.html)
Do yourself a favor and avoid reading his actual blog posts.
In particular, his most recent (http://www.turning-two.com/2009/05/bartmanhero.html).
Yep, it made me mad.
Well, I've kicked off my Memorial Day weekend (I'm working today) by discovering just exactly where this Bad News Cubs Mike character draws the line when it comes to reasonable internet discourse.
When he responded (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1391) to my gentle (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1383) suggestions (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1388) that—if he's really interested in what the FAGGOT PUSSIES over here are saying about him when we link to him EVERY FUCKING DAY—he ought to just use the login he set up in January to log into the messageboard...
QuoteThrillho,
You fucking idiot. I didn't have a fucking login in January. Whomever is the site administrator never gave me one. Are you this fucking stupid? Do you fail this miserably at reading comprehension?
...one of our own was kind enough to reciprocate by pointing out his missing login name for him (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1397).
Sure, Morph.
But where's his
password, smartass?
QuoteMorpheus,
While you're busy being the dumbest faggot on the face of the fucking earth, you should know that I never got a password from the site. I never got an e-mail.
Yes, I attempted to get one, but never got a response. Have I been inconsistent on this? Why this is a source of ridicule is beyond me. It just goes to show what fucking idiots you people are.
This morning I thought to offer him some assistance on this point...
QuoteRemember the password you chose when you signed up?
I'd start with that.
This is apparently when I crossed the line as, not ten minutes later, my comment had, as if by magic of internet, transformed to (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1400)...
QuoteI'm unfathomably stupid. My apologies.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/246ucrm.png)
Hey... I don't remember saying that!A few more since-deleted comments from yours truly followed, pointing out his Yellon-esque bout of pique and linking to a dispositive screenshot (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3556383181_7003f15c60_o.jpg) that came to me courtesy of Intrepid Reader Fascist Baby-Killer.
Then... BOOM (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1405).
QuoteThrillho,
Are you Dylan? I'm starting to think you are, except for the fact that you can spell.
I can only imagine you have one of two motives here:
1) Mike is stupid and doesn't know how to login to a website.
2) Mike is lying and never really tried to login to Insipio.
For number 1, in January, I attempted to login over there. It didn't work. I haven't thought about it since. It's been four months. I hadn't remembered or cared to remember whether I chose my own password or whether a temporary is given. Now that you've shown yourself to be such an obsessive pest, it is ringing a bell that I may have chose my own and that the site simply wasn't letting me in. Plus, I never got an e-mail at the time. It was never approved and didn't work.
I logged in last night and it was as boring as I expected. Just your run of the mill statfags spouting their standard stat memes. "Stats say this, stats say that... the unenlightened care about grit, hustle, etc."
Now, as for #2, unlike yourself, I always tell it how I see it. Straight up. I would have absolutely no motive to lie about whether I attempted to sign in over there. I absolutely positively did want to see what was being said about me.
Finally, if you continue on this subject any further, you will never post a comment here again. It's so annoying and irrelevant. You're like a fucking gnat.
You're the world's biggest idiot and faggot.
That final threat proved to be more than just idle cock-stroking, as my attempt to post a follow-up—in which I attempted to disclaim any accusations of Dylanry on my part, and further went on to call Mike "Al Yellon with a smaller site and a limited arsenal of frat boy profanity" as well as a "latent queen"—has thus far failed to show up.
In other words... I've been BANNED from Bad News Cubs.
I WIN, YOU FAGGOTS.
In other run-of-the-mill statfag news: Check out these faggots rubbing their small sample sizes all over their cotton-picking faggot numbers...
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/when-samples-become-reliable
Quote from: Tank on May 23, 2009, 03:04:18 PM
Well, I've kicked off my Memorial Day weekend (I'm working today) by discovering just exactly where this Bad News Cubs Mike character draws the line when it comes to reasonable internet discourse.
When he responded (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1391) to my gentle (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1383) suggestions (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1388) that—if he's really interested in what the FAGGOT PUSSIES over here are saying about him when we link to him EVERY FUCKING DAY—he ought to just use the login he set up in January to log into the messageboard...
QuoteThrillho,
You fucking idiot. I didn't have a fucking login in January. Whomever is the site administrator never gave me one. Are you this fucking stupid? Do you fail this miserably at reading comprehension?
...one of our own was kind enough to reciprocate by pointing out his missing login name for him (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1397).
Sure, Morph.
But where's his password, smartass?
QuoteMorpheus,
While you're busy being the dumbest faggot on the face of the fucking earth, you should know that I never got a password from the site. I never got an e-mail.
Yes, I attempted to get one, but never got a response. Have I been inconsistent on this? Why this is a source of ridicule is beyond me. It just goes to show what fucking idiots you people are.
This morning I thought to offer him some assistance on this point...
QuoteRemember the password you chose when you signed up?
I'd start with that.
This is apparently when I crossed the line as, not ten minutes later, my comment had, as if by magic of internet, transformed to (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1400)...
QuoteI'm unfathomably stupid. My apologies.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/246ucrm.png)
Hey... I don't remember saying that!
A few more since-deleted comments from yours truly followed, pointing out his Yellon-esque bout of pique and linking to a dispositive screenshot (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3556383181_7003f15c60_o.jpg) that came to me courtesy of Intrepid Reader Fascist Baby-Killer.
Then... BOOM (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1405).
QuoteThrillho,
Are you Dylan? I'm starting to think you are, except for the fact that you can spell.
I can only imagine you have one of two motives here:
1) Mike is stupid and doesn't know how to login to a website.
2) Mike is lying and never really tried to login to Insipio.
For number 1, in January, I attempted to login over there. It didn't work. I haven't thought about it since. It's been four months. I hadn't remembered or cared to remember whether I chose my own password or whether a temporary is given. Now that you've shown yourself to be such an obsessive pest, it is ringing a bell that I may have chose my own and that the site simply wasn't letting me in. Plus, I never got an e-mail at the time. It was never approved and didn't work.
I logged in last night and it was as boring as I expected. Just your run of the mill statfags spouting their standard stat memes. "Stats say this, stats say that... the unenlightened care about grit, hustle, etc."
Now, as for #2, unlike yourself, I always tell it how I see it. Straight up. I would have absolutely no motive to lie about whether I attempted to sign in over there. I absolutely positively did want to see what was being said about me.
Finally, if you continue on this subject any further, you will never post a comment here again. It's so annoying and irrelevant. You're like a fucking gnat.
You're the world's biggest idiot and faggot.
That final threat proved to be more than just idle cock-stroking, as my attempt to post a follow-up—in which I attempted to disclaim any accusations of Dylanry on my part, and further went on to call Mike "Al Yellon with a smaller site and a limited arsenal of frat boy profanity" as well as a "latent queen"—has thus far failed to show up.
In other words... I've been BANNED from Bad News Cubs.
I WIN, YOU FAGGOTS.
You may be a Taxolib Homocrat (Thanks Gil) but you are a fucking saint
Quote from: IrishYeti on May 23, 2009, 06:39:26 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 23, 2009, 03:04:18 PM
Well, I've kicked off my Memorial Day weekend (I'm working today) by discovering just exactly where this Bad News Cubs Mike character draws the line when it comes to reasonable internet discourse.
When he responded (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1391) to my gentle (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1383) suggestions (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1388) that—if he's really interested in what the FAGGOT PUSSIES over here are saying about him when we link to him EVERY FUCKING DAY—he ought to just use the login he set up in January to log into the messageboard...
QuoteThrillho,
You fucking idiot. I didn't have a fucking login in January. Whomever is the site administrator never gave me one. Are you this fucking stupid? Do you fail this miserably at reading comprehension?
...one of our own was kind enough to reciprocate by pointing out his missing login name for him (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1397).
Sure, Morph.
But where's his password, smartass?
QuoteMorpheus,
While you're busy being the dumbest faggot on the face of the fucking earth, you should know that I never got a password from the site. I never got an e-mail.
Yes, I attempted to get one, but never got a response. Have I been inconsistent on this? Why this is a source of ridicule is beyond me. It just goes to show what fucking idiots you people are.
This morning I thought to offer him some assistance on this point...
QuoteRemember the password you chose when you signed up?
I'd start with that.
This is apparently when I crossed the line as, not ten minutes later, my comment had, as if by magic of internet, transformed to (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1400)...
QuoteI'm unfathomably stupid. My apologies.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/246ucrm.png)
Hey... I don't remember saying that!
A few more since-deleted comments from yours truly followed, pointing out his Yellon-esque bout of pique and linking to a dispositive screenshot (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3556383181_7003f15c60_o.jpg) that came to me courtesy of Intrepid Reader Fascist Baby-Killer.
Then... BOOM (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/welcome-to-the-chi-ryan-freel/#comment-1405).
QuoteThrillho,
Are you Dylan? I'm starting to think you are, except for the fact that you can spell.
I can only imagine you have one of two motives here:
1) Mike is stupid and doesn't know how to login to a website.
2) Mike is lying and never really tried to login to Insipio.
For number 1, in January, I attempted to login over there. It didn't work. I haven't thought about it since. It's been four months. I hadn't remembered or cared to remember whether I chose my own password or whether a temporary is given. Now that you've shown yourself to be such an obsessive pest, it is ringing a bell that I may have chose my own and that the site simply wasn't letting me in. Plus, I never got an e-mail at the time. It was never approved and didn't work.
I logged in last night and it was as boring as I expected. Just your run of the mill statfags spouting their standard stat memes. "Stats say this, stats say that... the unenlightened care about grit, hustle, etc."
Now, as for #2, unlike yourself, I always tell it how I see it. Straight up. I would have absolutely no motive to lie about whether I attempted to sign in over there. I absolutely positively did want to see what was being said about me.
Finally, if you continue on this subject any further, you will never post a comment here again. It's so annoying and irrelevant. You're like a fucking gnat.
You're the world's biggest idiot and faggot.
That final threat proved to be more than just idle cock-stroking, as my attempt to post a follow-up—in which I attempted to disclaim any accusations of Dylanry on my part, and further went on to call Mike "Al Yellon with a smaller site and a limited arsenal of frat boy profanity" as well as a "latent queen"—has thus far failed to show up.
In other words... I've been BANNED from Bad News Cubs.
I WIN, YOU FAGGOTS.
You may be a Taxolib Homocrat (Thanks Gil) but you are a fucking saint
Intrepid Reader TEC: Hey, wait a minute?
But it sure is damn funny.
Thumbs up for Tank, that's what I call the funny stuffs.
Quote from: Tank on May 23, 2009, 03:04:18 PM
I WIN, YOU FAGGOTS.
Bump. I've been BANNED from posting at that shithead's site.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comments
QuoteMorpheus,
You're out of here, too. You're boring and stupid.
You resort to shit talking and personal attack... while the Cubs continue to win a lot when Koyie is the starting catcher. You have no argument against it. I'm beginning to think that a big part of it is that Koyie makes the pitchers feel really comfortable. He's so mild mannered and supportive.
For my other readers,
Morpheus left some comment along the lines of, "Mike, you're frustrated I'm getting under your skin, huh?"
And it's like, "Yes, Morpheus, I think you're stupid, antagonistic and boring as all fuck. I find absolutely nothing valuable in anything you write. If I could snap my fingers and you wouldn't post here anymore, I would."
Call it 'under my skin'... call it whatever the fuck you want. What you can't call it is, "Morpheus is right... has proven Mike wrong... and it's upsetting Mike."
Wrong. Morpheus, you're a nerd and a fucking idiot. If any of your discussions at Insipio were even mildly interesting, you wouldn't be over here every fucking day. Do you see me getting involved over there?
Of course not. Though, I would really like to know who "TheHawkRules" is. Apparently, I have some sort of bad impersonator out there.
Well, I wouldn't call him a *BAD* impersonator... and if this guy is so awful at making his case that he can't even engage me on the issues... what a pussy. Pussypussypussypussypussy. And I'm pretty sure that the bolded part is exactly what happened, but he's just too fucking dumb to understand it.
Quote from: morpheus on June 08, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
Bump. I've been BANNED from posting at that shithead's site.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comments
QuoteMorpheus,
You're out of here, too. You're boring and stupid.
You resort to shit talking and personal attack... while the Cubs continue to win a lot when Koyie is the starting catcher. You have no argument against it. I'm beginning to think that a big part of it is that Koyie makes the pitchers feel really comfortable. He's so mild mannered and supportive.
For my other readers,
Morpheus left some comment along the lines of, "Mike, you're frustrated I'm getting under your skin, huh?"
And it's like, "Yes, Morpheus, I think you're stupid, antagonistic and boring as all fuck. I find absolutely nothing valuable in anything you write. If I could snap my fingers and you wouldn't post here anymore, I would."
Call it 'under my skin'... call it whatever the fuck you want. What you can't call it is, "Morpheus is right... has proven Mike wrong... and it's upsetting Mike."
Wrong. Morpheus, you're a nerd and a fucking idiot. If any of your discussions at Insipio were even mildly interesting, you wouldn't be over here every fucking day. Do you see me getting involved over there?
Of course not. Though, I would really like to know who "TheHawkRules" is. Apparently, I have some sort of bad impersonator out there.
Well, I wouldn't call him a *BAD* impersonator... and if this guy is so awful at making his case that he can't even engage me on the issues... what a pussy. Pussypussypussypussypussy. And I'm pretty sure that the bolded part is exactly what happened, but he's just too fucking dumb to understand it.
What a faggot.
Quote from: MAD on June 08, 2009, 11:11:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 08, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
Bump. I've been BANNED from posting at that shithead's site.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comments
QuoteMorpheus,
You're out of here, too. You're boring and stupid.
You resort to shit talking and personal attack... while the Cubs continue to win a lot when Koyie is the starting catcher. You have no argument against it. I'm beginning to think that a big part of it is that Koyie makes the pitchers feel really comfortable. He's so mild mannered and supportive.
For my other readers,
Morpheus left some comment along the lines of, "Mike, you're frustrated I'm getting under your skin, huh?"
And it's like, "Yes, Morpheus, I think you're stupid, antagonistic and boring as all fuck. I find absolutely nothing valuable in anything you write. If I could snap my fingers and you wouldn't post here anymore, I would."
Call it 'under my skin'... call it whatever the fuck you want. What you can't call it is, "Morpheus is right... has proven Mike wrong... and it's upsetting Mike."
Wrong. Morpheus, you're a nerd and a fucking idiot. If any of your discussions at Insipio were even mildly interesting, you wouldn't be over here every fucking day. Do you see me getting involved over there?
Of course not. Though, I would really like to know who "TheHawkRules" is. Apparently, I have some sort of bad impersonator out there.
Well, I wouldn't call him a *BAD* impersonator... and if this guy is so awful at making his case that he can't even engage me on the issues... what a pussy. Pussypussypussypussypussy. And I'm pretty sure that the bolded part is exactly what happened, but he's just too fucking dumb to understand it.
What a faggot.
Insipio is such a dig, too. That hurts.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 12:05:50 AM
Quote from: MAD on June 08, 2009, 11:11:04 PM
Quote from: morpheus on June 08, 2009, 11:06:40 PM
Bump. I've been BANNED from posting at that shithead's site.
http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comments
QuoteMorpheus,
You're out of here, too. You're boring and stupid.
You resort to shit talking and personal attack... while the Cubs continue to win a lot when Koyie is the starting catcher. You have no argument against it. I'm beginning to think that a big part of it is that Koyie makes the pitchers feel really comfortable. He's so mild mannered and supportive.
For my other readers,
Morpheus left some comment along the lines of, "Mike, you're frustrated I'm getting under your skin, huh?"
And it's like, "Yes, Morpheus, I think you're stupid, antagonistic and boring as all fuck. I find absolutely nothing valuable in anything you write. If I could snap my fingers and you wouldn't post here anymore, I would."
Call it 'under my skin'... call it whatever the fuck you want. What you can't call it is, "Morpheus is right... has proven Mike wrong... and it's upsetting Mike."
Wrong. Morpheus, you're a nerd and a fucking idiot. If any of your discussions at Insipio were even mildly interesting, you wouldn't be over here every fucking day. Do you see me getting involved over there?
Of course not. Though, I would really like to know who "TheHawkRules" is. Apparently, I have some sort of bad impersonator out there.
Well, I wouldn't call him a *BAD* impersonator... and if this guy is so awful at making his case that he can't even engage me on the issues... what a pussy. Pussypussypussypussypussy. And I'm pretty sure that the bolded part is exactly what happened, but he's just too fucking dumb to understand it.
What a faggot.
Insipio is such a dig, too. That hurts.
Intrepid Reader: Mike D.
"You're BANNING him?
You're an autocratfaggot."
Dubya-eye-ennnnnnn.
This guy is awesome (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comment-1465).
QuoteRV is a worthless fucking faggot. And I can say 'fag' all the fuck I want. It will never stop you or RV from reading the best Cubs blog on the internet. There's simply no competition. Try and name a better Cubs blog.
I feel like I've been insulted by Don Rickles. What an honor.
Quote from: RV on June 09, 2009, 08:47:17 AM
This guy is awesome (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/catchers-an-ode-to-my-dumbfuck-enemies/#comment-1465).
QuoteRV is a worthless fucking faggot. And I can say 'fag' all the fuck I want. It will never stop you or RV from reading the best Cubs blog on the internet. There's simply no competition. Try and name a better Cubs blog.
I feel like I've been insulted by Don Rickles. What an honor.
I think Mike needs a friend. A defender, if you will.
He's got an account here. I'm sure he'll head on over to engage in some wit with us.
Quote from: Andy on June 09, 2009, 10:17:51 AM
He's got an account here. I'm sure he'll head on over to engage in some wit with us.
Once his superior mind can wrap itself around how to sign on.
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Trolling is actually the exercising and honing of a skill. It is a useful skill? Arguable. But I think online time is better spent learning how to turn away other people's insults and insult them back, or best them in a debate, or appear to, than in re-posting lame "PWNED" pictures you stole from some lame website, as so many people do. Trolling takes ingenuity. As I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled. It helps the writing and the thinking.
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Trolling is actually the exercising and honing of a skill. It is a useful skill? Arguable. But I think online time is better spent learning how to turn away other people's insults and insult them back, or best them in a debate, or appear to, than in re-posting lame "PWNED" pictures you stole from some lame website, as so many people do. Trolling takes ingenuity. As I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled. It helps the writing and the thinking.
I wish I knew how to quit you.
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
I just have nothing better to do.
I also enjoy stick-poking.
Quote from: Andy on June 09, 2009, 10:17:51 AM
He's got an account here. I'm sure he'll head on over to engage in some wit with us.
You're clearly too chickenshit to let him.
Who?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Trolling is actually the exercising and honing of a skill. It is a useful skill? Arguable. But I think online time is better spent learning how to turn away other people's insults and insult them back, or best them in a debate, or appear to, than in re-posting lame "PWNED" pictures you stole from some lame website, as so many people do. Trolling takes ingenuity. As I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled. It helps the writing and the thinking.
Well, it's not from the prophet himself but I'll be damned if the flashback didn't just put a smile right on my face.
Quote from: Slak on June 09, 2009, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Trolling is actually the exercising and honing of a skill. It is a useful skill? Arguable. But I think online time is better spent learning how to turn away other people's insults and insult them back, or best them in a debate, or appear to, than in re-posting lame "PWNED" pictures you stole from some lame website, as so many people do. Trolling takes ingenuity. As I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled. It helps the writing and the thinking.
I spit my TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT latte out onto my office floor in laughter.
Well, it's not from the prophet himself but I'll be damned if the flashback didn't just put a smile right on my face.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on June 09, 2009, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: Slak on June 09, 2009, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Kermit, B. on June 09, 2009, 10:24:14 AM
In his defense, I don't understand why you guys go over there, either.
Trolling is actually the exercising and honing of a skill. It is a useful skill? Arguable. But I think online time is better spent learning how to turn away other people's insults and insult them back, or best them in a debate, or appear to, than in re-posting lame "PWNED" pictures you stole from some lame website, as so many people do. Trolling takes ingenuity. As I once told the people at the Chud.com forums when I singlehandedly beat their entire politics forum in a debate (by sophistry, natch), I am operating at a very high level. The best trolls are usually better for having trolled. It helps the writing and the thinking.
I spit my TAXOLIB HOMOCRAT latte out onto my office floor in laughter.
Well, it's not from the prophet himself but I'll be damned if the flashback didn't just put a smile right on my face.
Oh Romeo, Romeo, where art thou oh Romeo...
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
Quote from: Andy on June 09, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
Who?
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?action=profile;u=2774
Can you set his password to "FAGGOT" and send him an email telling him so?
Shit, don't even bother setting the password.
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
When does the court order expire and he can use a computer again?
Quote from: CBStew on June 09, 2009, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
When does the court order expire and he can use a computer again?
You got any judge contacts in Hobart?
Quote from: CBStew on June 09, 2009, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
When does the court order expire and he can use a computer again?
I've assumed he finally found the right medication.
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 12:10:36 PM
Quote from: CBStew on June 09, 2009, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
When does the court order expire and he can use a computer again?
I've assumed he finally found the right medication.
I've stopped in Hobart twice this year. I have yet to see my dearest concubine. I fear the worst.
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
QuoteThe best trolls are usually better for having trolled.
Something about this line... It just never gets old. Every time I read that paragraph I get a little excited because I know it's going to come up. God what crack muncher that dude is.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 10, 2009, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
QuoteThe best trolls are usually better for having trolled.
Something about this line... It just never gets old. Every time I read that paragraph I get a little excited because I know it's going to come up. God what crack muncher that dude is.
Those fucking Hoosiers.
Quote from: Fork on June 10, 2009, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 10, 2009, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
QuoteThe best trolls are usually better for having trolled.
Something about this line... It just never gets old. Every time I read that paragraph I get a little excited because I know it's going to come up. God what crack muncher that dude is.
Those fucking Hoosiers.
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
EDIT: It's not only not really Indiana, it's actually just an annex of the South Side.
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 10, 2009, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 10, 2009, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
QuoteThe best trolls are usually better for having trolled.
Something about this line... It just never gets old. Every time I read that paragraph I get a little excited because I know it's going to come up. God what crack muncher that dude is.
Those fucking Hoosiers.
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana meant for habitation.
FTFY
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
More like the difference between getting teabagged and getting Arabian Goggles.
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work in factories.
The other big difference is Indiana's lack of urban youth, except for Apex.
Quote from: Slak on June 10, 2009, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Quote from: Fork on June 10, 2009, 07:56:27 AM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 10, 2009, 07:21:50 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 09, 2009, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: thehawk on June 09, 2009, 11:11:52 AM
I actually thought those were the words of Paul, nicely done.
They were, minus a small change in the first sentence.
Here's the original link, and all of the ensuing carnage:
http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=2974.msg45773#msg45773
Hard to beleive that it was almost 3 years ago. I miss Paul sometimes, he brought a particularly compelling form of da crazy.
QuoteThe best trolls are usually better for having trolled.
Something about this line... It just never gets old. Every time I read that paragraph I get a little excited because I know it's going to come up. God what crack muncher that dude is.
Those fucking Hoosiers.
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana meant for habitation.
FTFY
(http://12.media.tumblr.com/UXITyBj5sbsgni2jiINUhqZt_400.png)
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indianais used to be full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that worked in factories.
Ghost Town'd
As for Urban Youths, Indianapolis is lousy with them, so I don't understand your other comment. I actually took a self-guided tour of Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Hobart two weeks ago in search of a place to shoot an MFA film with some TPex's classmates. It was sad. Not to rip on it too bad because it's nobody's fault but the industrial economy that built and allowed those towns to subsist is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. I'm telling you that is straight-up poverty and misery languishing in the great wide open down there. The word for today is: Blight.
A little reminder about the town and economy from whence Internet Apex sprung:
http://www.manta.com/company/mmcbtz6
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 11, 2009, 07:32:44 AM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indianais used to be full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that worked in factories.
Ghost Town'd
As for Urban Youths, Indianapolis is lousy with them, so I don't understand your other comment. I actually took a self-guided tour of Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Hobart two weeks ago in search of a place to shoot an MFA film with some TPex's classmates. It was sad. Not to rip on it too bad because it's nobody's fault but the industrial economy that built and allowed those towns to subsist is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. I'm telling you that is straight-up poverty and misery languishing in the great wide open down there. The word for today is: Blight.
A little reminder about the town and economy from whence Internet Apex sprung:
http://www.manta.com/company/mmcbtz6
All that poverty and misery are sure to produce great art though. I hear there's writer in Hobart that compares favorably with some of the all time greats.
A few years ago he was on a trajectory to far exceed the works of Hunter S. Thompson. I'm sure he's got Tom Wolfe in his sights by now. I can't wait for the Anthology.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 11, 2009, 07:32:44 AM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indianais used to be full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that worked in factories.
Ghost Town'd
As for Urban Youths, Indianapolis is lousy with them, so I don't understand your other comment. I actually took a self-guided tour of Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Hobart two weeks ago in search of a place to shoot an MFA film with some TPex's classmates. It was sad. Not to rip on it too bad because it's nobody's fault but the industrial economy that built and allowed those towns to subsist is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. I'm telling you that is straight-up poverty and misery languishing in the great wide open down there. The word for today is: Blight.
A little reminder about the town and economy from whence Internet Apex sprung:
http://www.manta.com/company/mmcbtz6
Whiting's not so bad. It's an enclave sort of sealed off from Hammond and Gary, thanks to the BP Refinery. Of course, they'll never get that refinery upgraded, it will eventually close, Whiting will be just as empty and blighted as Gary and we'll buy all our gas from Canada.*
* Unless you're getting federal funds, in which case your gas will come from the Gulf Coast.
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 01:02:40 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 11, 2009, 07:32:44 AM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indianais used to be full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that worked in factories.
Ghost Town'd
As for Urban Youths, Indianapolis is lousy with them, so I don't understand your other comment. I actually took a self-guided tour of Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Hobart two weeks ago in search of a place to shoot an MFA film with some TPex's classmates. It was sad. Not to rip on it too bad because it's nobody's fault but the industrial economy that built and allowed those towns to subsist is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. I'm telling you that is straight-up poverty and misery languishing in the great wide open down there. The word for today is: Blight.
A little reminder about the town and economy from whence Internet Apex sprung:
http://www.manta.com/company/mmcbtz6
Whiting's not so bad. It's an enclave sort of sealed off from Hammond and Gary, thanks to the BP Refinery. Of course, they'll never get that refinery upgraded, it will eventually close, Whiting will be just as empty and blighted as Gary and we'll buy all our gas from Canada.*
* Unless you're getting federal funds, in which case your gas will come from the Gulf Coast.
I agree that Whiting was a bit nicer than the rest of the NWI and South Side Chicago 'hoods I visited. It didn't look nearly as bad as it smelled. So there's that.
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 11, 2009, 03:13:12 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 11, 2009, 01:02:40 PM
Quote from: Internet Apex on June 11, 2009, 07:32:44 AM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
Quote from: Jon on June 10, 2009, 12:49:45 PM
Quote from: butthead on June 10, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on June 10, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Everyone knows Northwest Indiana is not really Indiana.
That's what I keep telling people.
So they're two distinct and discrete kinds of suck, then?
Oh yeah. Indiana is full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that work on farms. NW Indianais used to be full of racist, ignorant, closed-minded people that worked in factories.
Ghost Town'd
As for Urban Youths, Indianapolis is lousy with them, so I don't understand your other comment. I actually took a self-guided tour of Whiting, East Chicago, Gary and Hobart two weeks ago in search of a place to shoot an MFA film with some TPex's classmates. It was sad. Not to rip on it too bad because it's nobody's fault but the industrial economy that built and allowed those towns to subsist is deader than Jimmy Hoffa. I'm telling you that is straight-up poverty and misery languishing in the great wide open down there. The word for today is: Blight.
A little reminder about the town and economy from whence Internet Apex sprung:
http://www.manta.com/company/mmcbtz6
Whiting's not so bad. It's an enclave sort of sealed off from Hammond and Gary, thanks to the BP Refinery. Of course, they'll never get that refinery upgraded, it will eventually close, Whiting will be just as empty and blighted as Gary and we'll buy all our gas from Canada.*
* Unless you're getting federal funds, in which case your gas will come from the Gulf Coast.
I agree that Whiting was a bit nicer than the rest of the NWI and South Side Chicago 'hoods I visited. It didn't look nearly as bad as it smelled. So there's that.
There's also Pierogyi Fest.
The best damn hetero blog on the internet answers his critics (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/a-big-gay-post-by-big-fag-mike/). (in third person, natch)
QuoteMike has absolutely no problem with it if a gay dude is flirting with him. Doesn't make Mike the least bit uncomfortable.
Mike can name at least 8 gay people in two seconds... that are dear friends of his... in real life.
QuoteMike has absolutely no problem acknowledging when a man is attractive. For all the stupid conversations about Mark DeRosa this year, Mike has no problem acknowledging that he is one handsome bastard. You can tell that Lou Piniella was very handsome as a younger man.
QuoteMike has never had interest in having sex with a man. Mike has been horny as fuck for women since age 5 or so and it's never gone away. If Mike were interested in sex with a man, he'd have had it by now... hundreds of times. Mike's been in conversations with gay friends where they talk about shit the white moral police would never know about. How gay dudes can experience throat pain from too many fucking blow jobs. Most get rectal exams from doctors from time to time.
Quote from: RV on June 12, 2009, 09:24:21 AM
The best damn hetero blog on the internet answers his critics (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/a-big-gay-post-by-big-fag-mike/). (in third person, natch)
QuoteMike has absolutely no problem with it if a gay dude is flirting with him. Doesn't make Mike the least bit uncomfortable.
Mike can name at least 8 gay people in two seconds... that are dear friends of his... in real life.
QuoteMike has absolutely no problem acknowledging when a man is attractive. For all the stupid conversations about Mark DeRosa this year, Mike has no problem acknowledging that he is one handsome bastard. You can tell that Lou Piniella was very handsome as a younger man.
QuoteMike has never had interest in having sex with a man. Mike has been horny as fuck for women since age 5 or so and it's never gone away. If Mike were interested in sex with a man, he'd have had it by now... hundreds of times. Mike's been in conversations with gay friends where they talk about shit the white moral police would never know about. How gay dudes can experience throat pain from too many fucking blow jobs. Most get rectal exams from doctors from time to time.
Mike could take a bigger cock, dry, at age 5 than any of you pussy ass faggots ever could with a handful of muscle relaxants and a bottle of 10W-30.
It takes your mother 9 months to take a shit.
By which I mean to suggest: you are her fecal matter. She evacuated you from her colon. After extracting water from you, you passed through her rectum and were stored in her rectal ampulla until she dilated her anal sphincters and expelled you through her anus.
You rate a "Type 2" on the Bristol Stool Chart.
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 09:49:17 AM
You rate a "Type 2" on the Bristol Stool Chart.
Intrepid Reader: Fork<Something about Bristol Palin and anal sex>
Quote from: ChuckD on June 12, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 09:49:17 AM
You rate a "Type 2" on the Bristol Stool Chart.
Intrepid Reader: Fork
<Something about Bristol Palin and anal sex>
Booooooo..
Are you looking for "That's what A-Rod said"
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 12, 2009, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 12, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 09:49:17 AM
You rate a "Type 2" on the Bristol Stool Chart.
Intrepid Reader: Fork
<Something about Bristol Palin and anal sex>
Booooooo..
Are you looking for "That's what A-Rod said"
All I know is: it would be extremely naive to believe ChuckD's convenient excuse that his anal sex joke was referring to 18-year-old Bristol and not 14-year-old Willow.
And that it would be wise to keep your 14-year-old daughters away from ChuckD. He totally wants to rape them. In the butt.
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 12:32:52 PM
Quote from: IrishYeti on June 12, 2009, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 12, 2009, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2009, 09:49:17 AM
You rate a "Type 2" on the Bristol Stool Chart.
Intrepid Reader: Fork
<Something about Bristol Palin and anal sex>
Booooooo..
Are you looking for "That's what A-Rod said"
All I know is: it would be extremely naive to believe ChuckD's convenient excuse that his anal sex joke was referring to 18-year-old Bristol and not 14-year-old Willow.
And that it would be wise to keep your 14-year-old daughters away from ChuckD. He totally wants to rape them. In the butt.
That's why he cruises Mormon churches.
Bump. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98VS5RG1&show_article=1
Quote"He was like 'You need to respect me.' He was in my face. He was obviously trying to intimidate me and scare me," Hilton said. "I was like 'I don't need to respect you. I don't respect you and I did say this, and I knew that it would be the worst thing I could possibly say to him because he was acting the way he was. I said 'You know what, I don't respect you and you're gay and stop being such a faggot.'"
Sounds oddly familiar.
QuoteTORONTO (AP) - Police have charged the tour manager of the Black Eyed Peas with assault after he allegedly gave celebrity blogger Perez Hilton a black eye outside a Toronto nightclub.
[...]
Hilton, who was at the club with Lady Gaga, said he then left the club and was punched from behind. The pop stars and the blogger were among celebrities in Toronto for the MuchMusic Video Awards on Sunday night.
I'm having trouble imagining the mechanics of this, but it sounds cozy.
Statboner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/sports/baseball/10cameras.html?_r=2&hp
Quote from: Eli on July 10, 2009, 09:16:56 AM
Statboner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/sports/baseball/10cameras.html?_r=2&hp
Great link, Eli. Although Gary Hughes is still waiting for the statrat who can tell him what WILL happen, not what HAS happened. I really hope they make the information public so that petabytefaggots like ChuckD can accurately determine the Dirty Jersey Factor (slides + dives + jersey dirt + wall collisions / stubble).
Quote from: RV on July 10, 2009, 09:31:33 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 10, 2009, 09:16:56 AM
Statboner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/sports/baseball/10cameras.html?_r=2&hp
Great link, Eli. Although Gary Hughes is still waiting for the statrat who can tell him what WILL happen, not what HAS happened. I really hope they make the information public so that petabytefaggots like ChuckD can accurately determine the Dirty Jersey Factor (slides + dives + jersey dirt + wall collisions / stubble).
Anyone who's ever peeled off a sweaty jock strap after a round of bro-on-bro knows you need 31 cameras
minimum to accurately capture usable stubble data.
Faggot.
Some really fucking advanced ass xBABIP modeling from the 2008 offseason, faggots...
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/batters-and-babip/
QuoteSome people like to add .120 to a batter's Line Drive Percentage to predict his BABIP (a guideline originally suggested by Dave Studeman). But one would expect that BABIP depends on more than just the ability to hit line drives. Speed, for instance, clearly seems to play a significant role. And what about the ability to control the strike zone, make consistent contact and hit the ball to all fields?
For example, if Jacoby Ellsbury hits a ground ball in the hole between short and third, he has a higher chance of getting a hit than if Bengie Molina hits the exact same ball in the exact same place. Anecdotally, this is how Ichiro manages to get so many hits every year. And fans of the Red Sox, Yankees and Rays can tell you that David Ortiz, Jason Giambi and Carlos Pena have been robbed of many a base hit because of the extreme defensive shifts used against them, whereas Dustin Pedroia, Derek Jeter and BJ Upton have gotten more hits because of their batting eye and their ability to use the whole field. Surely, these factors contribute to whether or not a batted ball becomes a hit.
We endeavored to take a more scientific look at batted ball data to develop a better method of finding a hitter's expected BABIP. Using Baseball Prospectus data from 2002-2008, we calculated a range of variables that we considered to be the primary factors in determining BABIP...
...
Our regression model yields an R-squared value of .348, and all non-vector explanatory variables are significant at the 1 percent level. This suggests that the factors included are all highly significant, and jointly explain roughly 35 percent of the variance in a hitter's BABIP. As an additional test of accuracy, we find a robust 59 percent correlation between actual and predicted BABIP for all players in our sample.
Given the tremendous uncertainty regarding the outcome of balls in play, these results are extremely promising. By contrast, commonly used models based on line drive percentage alone explain only about 3 percent of the variance in BABIP when applied to the same dataset, and yield a mere 18 percent correlation between predicted and actual values.
Fun!
This, of course, gives me pause:
QuoteFinally, let's take a look at the players who were the most lucky and unlucky this season. We'd expect that many of these players will regress in 2009—not necessarily all are going to, as some are simply going to get lucky or unlucky again. However, we can be confident that most of these players will experience regression in '09.
Let's start with 2008's luckiest hitters:
YEAR NAME BABIP xBABIP Diff
2008 Joey Gathright .278 .156 .122
2008 Chipper Jones .382 .325 .058
2008 Matt Kemp .359 .312 .047
2008 Ryan Theriot .335 .291 .044
2008 Felipe Lopez .324 .287 .037
2008 Milton Bradley .375 .334 .041
2008 Aaron Miles .337 .301 .037
2008 Yadier Molina .307 .274 .033
2008 Shin-soo Choo .359 .320 .039
2008 Geovany Soto .331 .295 .036
2008 Mike Aviles .355 .317 .038
2008 Reed Johnson .338 .302 .036
2008 Jason Bay .318 .285 .033
2008 Chone Figgins .329 .295 .034
2008 Chase Headley .356 .319 .036
2008 Howie Kendrick .351 .316 .035
2008 Edgar V Gonzalez .335 .302 .033
2008 Ryan Doumit .328 .297 .031
2008 Manny Ramirez .360 .326 .034
2008 Aaron Rowand .318 .288 .029
Unsurprisingly, this list includes a lot of 2008's surprises—Bradley, Miles, Aviles, Doumit, Choo, Lopez. Interestingly, Gathright's xBABIP of .156 was nearly 90 points lower than the next-closest person (and remember, we do take speed into account in the model). Maybe Geovany Soto isn't quite this good. Perhaps Manny Ramirez and Milton Bradley will disappoint whoever signs them. The Cardinals' middle infielders aren't as good as they seemed.
Bear in mind that this model is a work in progress, but here's how a revised version of it stacks up against other methods of estimating expected BABIP...
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/whats-the-best-babip-estimator/
Plus, an Excel toy to play with here...
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fantasy/article/simple-xbabip-calculator/
So Joey Gathright was the luckiest hitter in baseball in 2008? And still put up a .584 OPS? That's amazing.
Quote from: Eli on July 23, 2009, 03:03:29 PM
So Joey Gathright was the luckiest hitter in baseball in 2008? And still put up a .584 OPS? And Jim Hendry still signed him? That's amazing.
Triple chin'ed.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hardens-huge-whiff-rate
QuoteOver the weekend Matthew noted that the only starter who comes close to getting as many swinging strikes as called strikes is Rich Harden. He does it with just two pitches, a four-seam fastball and a changeup. Sliders and curves, generally, get the most swinging strikes so that makes Harden's feat that much more amazing. Harden used to throw a splitter and a slider as well, but gave them up in hope of decreasing his injuries.
Harden four-seam fastball averages about 92 mph with over 10 inches of 'rise'. The fastball has a 18.7% whiff rate (misses per swings). Among starters only Ted Lilly, Jonathan Sanchez, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer have fastballs with a higher whiff rate.
His changeup is an even bigger reason for his huge number of swinging strikes. Hitters miss 48% of the time they swing at his change. As Harry Pavlidis highlighted that is the third most of any pitch in the game, and tops amongst changeups. The changeup has about 8mph separation from his fastball, with less tail and 'rise'. Because he lacks any other secondary pitches he throws the changeup almost equally to lefties and righties, about 37% of the time. Harden starts about a third of of his at-bats with the changeup and has had better results when he pitches it before his fastball (1.3 runs per 100 above average) then when he throws it after (0.6 runs per 100 above average). This is the opposite of what we saw with Tim Lincecum. Hitters must be expecting the fastball on the first pitch of the at-bat and the changeup trips them up.
Harden's results so far this year have been poor, but that has largely been driven by his high BABIP and HR/FB. His K and BB rates are inline with his career numbers, so going forward we should expect him to be very good.
According to this DL tool it looks like Harden has spent 26 days on the DL this year and 38 in 2008 way down over from 100 days in both of 2007 and 2006, so it looks like getting rid of the splitter and slider may have helped him stay healthy. That left him with two pitches, both of which rack up tons and tons of swinging strikes. It as a testament to how those pitches are that he can succeed as a starter with just the two pitches.
Quote from: Tank on July 27, 2009, 12:53:16 PM
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/hardens-huge-whiff-rate
QuoteOver the weekend Matthew noted that the only starter who comes close to getting as many swinging strikes as called strikes is Rich Harden. He does it with just two pitches, a four-seam fastball and a changeup. Sliders and curves, generally, get the most swinging strikes so that makes Harden's feat that much more amazing. Harden used to throw a splitter and a slider as well, but gave them up in hope of decreasing his injuries.
Harden four-seam fastball averages about 92 mph with over 10 inches of 'rise'. The fastball has a 18.7% whiff rate (misses per swings). Among starters only Ted Lilly, Jonathan Sanchez, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer have fastballs with a higher whiff rate.
His changeup is an even bigger reason for his huge number of swinging strikes. Hitters miss 48% of the time they swing at his change. As Harry Pavlidis highlighted that is the third most of any pitch in the game, and tops amongst changeups. The changeup has about 8mph separation from his fastball, with less tail and 'rise'. Because he lacks any other secondary pitches he throws the changeup almost equally to lefties and righties, about 37% of the time. Harden starts about a third of of his at-bats with the changeup and has had better results when he pitches it before his fastball (1.3 runs per 100 above average) then when he throws it after (0.6 runs per 100 above average). This is the opposite of what we saw with Tim Lincecum. Hitters must be expecting the fastball on the first pitch of the at-bat and the changeup trips them up.
Harden's results so far this year have been poor, but that has largely been driven by his high BABIP and HR/FB. His K and BB rates are inline with his career numbers, so going forward we should expect him to be very good.
According to this DL tool it looks like Harden has spent 26 days on the DL this year and 38 in 2008 way down over from 100 days in both of 2007 and 2006, so it looks like getting rid of the splitter and slider may have helped him stay healthy. That left him with two pitches, both of which rack up tons and tons of swinging strikes. It as a testament to how those pitches are that he can succeed as a starter with just the two pitches.
I was thinking about this over the weekend...
Normally, when a pitcher only has two pitches, he's ripe for the pen, right? It seems that with Harden, the opposite would be true, since neither pitch is meant to deceive the hitter on its own, it's the combination that does it. The more a hitter sees Harden, the better Harden's chances are, or at least I don't think it helps the hitter as much as hitting against other pitchers.
It seems great relievers have a great breaking pitch or a great splitter (Hoffman's change-up and Rivera's cutter being exceptions). Eckersley is the closest comp I can think of to Harden, who also seemed to just get by on a fastball and change-up.
Does this seem right, or am I Weebsing it up?
Quote from: Oleg on July 27, 2009, 01:20:49 PM
I was thinking about this over the weekend...
Normally, when a pitcher only has two pitches, he's ripe for the pen, right? It seems that with Harden, the opposite would be true, since neither pitch is meant to deceive the hitter on its own, it's the combination that does it. The more a hitter sees Harden, the better Harden's chances are, or at least I don't think it helps the hitter as much as hitting against other pitchers.
I like this. Interesting thought.
Cumulatively, in the last three years, all major league starters are broken down like this:
Time
Through
Order PA AVG/ OBP/ SLG OPS
1 130,882 .262/.326/.415 .741
2 127,740 .273/.335/.436 .771
3 96,999 .285/.347/.460 .807
4 11,355 .289/.355/.448 .803For Harden, in 2009, it looks like this:
Time
Through
Order PA AVG/ OBP/ SLG OPS
1 158 .213/.273/.418 .691
2 148 .281/.370/.570 .940
3 88 .211/.310/.250 .560
4 7 .571/.571/.1000 .1571Probably not enough data to draw a real conclusion here, but so far, hitters do best the second time they see Harden (throwing out the 7 PAs from the four times row). They suck the first time, have success the second time, then are worst of all the third time they see him in a game. That definitely goes against how most pitchers perform, but again, small sample size. It would semi-support your theory, if true.
I think we'll just have to see how it plays out, right?
Quote from: Eli on July 27, 2009, 02:08:12 PM
I think we'll just have to see how it plays out, right?
You're exactly right, nerd. We
will see how it plays out. On the field. ON the field. Not on your spreadsheet express program thingie, but on the field of play. Your numbers don't tell me anything solid. They're diarrhea to me. You tell me how many K's, W's, and IP's he's got and I'll tell you the size of his manhood.
Quote from: JD on July 27, 2009, 07:25:03 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 27, 2009, 02:08:12 PM
I think we'll just have to see how it plays out, right?
You're exactly right, nerd. We will see how it plays out. On the field. ON the field. Not on your spreadsheet express program thingie, but on the field of play. Your numbers don't tell me anything solid. They're diarrhea to me. You tell me how many K's, W's, and IP's he's got and I'll tell you the size of his manhood.
k.
Goddamnit JD i fucking love you dude. like, totally.
Quote from: Eli on July 27, 2009, 07:50:49 PM
Quote from: JD on July 27, 2009, 07:25:03 PM
Quote from: Eli on July 27, 2009, 02:08:12 PM
I think we'll just have to see how it plays out, right?
You're exactly right, nerd. We will see how it plays out. On the field. ON the field. Not on your spreadsheet express program thingie, but on the field of play. Your numbers don't tell me anything solid. They're diarrhea to me. You tell me how many K's, W's, and IP's he's got and I'll tell you the size of his manhood.
k.
Yeah! And that goes DOUBLE for Oleg.
Awesome interview with Brian Bannister. In short, he's a statfag and he's used it to make himself a better pitcher.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/brian-bannister-tbd/
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
Pssst.
Nobody really knows what UZR is or what it does. One day, it was just there and so everyone kinda just went with it.
Quote from: ChuckD on August 13, 2009, 01:34:50 AM
Nobody really knows what UZR is or what it does. One day, it was just there and so everyone kinda just went with it.
I kind of assumed that's how Fork showed up.
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
I can take a stab at it:
Basically, Ultimate Zone Rating divides the field into a group of zones, using SS as an (simplistic) example you'd have a zone for grounders between SS and 3B, between SS and the bag at second, slow rollers, etc (these aren't the real zones, but the idea of it). UZR then measures what percentage of plays a a player makes in each zone (converts them to an out) and compares them to an average. A 0 UZR would be league average.
Basically, it is good at exposing players like a Jeter who generally have a high fielding percentage on plays to them, but don't have the range to get to anything versus a player who might have a few more errors, but is able to make plays on a significantly higher amount of plays.
Dye specifically, fan graphs would argue that his defense for his career has been pretty bad. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=911&position=OF)
Main Criticisms of UZR:
Doesn't account for outfielder arm strength
Doesn't account for ability to turn double plays
Says Jeter is a bad SS (valid for Yankee's fans only)
Quote from: Pre on August 13, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
I can take a stab at it:
Basically, Ultimate Zone Rating divides the field into a group of zones, using SS as an (simplistic) example you'd have a zone for grounders between SS and 3B, between SS and the bag at second, slow rollers, etc (these aren't the real zones, but the idea of it). UZR then measures what percentage of plays a a player makes in each zone (converts them to an out) and compares them to an average. A 0 UZR would be league average.
Basically, it is good at exposing players like a Jeter who generally have a high fielding percentage on plays to them, but don't have the range to get to anything versus a player who might have a few more errors, but is able to make plays on a significantly higher amount of plays.
Dye specifically, fan graphs would argue that his defense for his career has been pretty bad. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=911&position=OF)
Main Criticisms of UZR:
Doesn't account for outfielder arm strength
Doesn't account for ability to turn double plays
Says Jeter is a bad SS (valid for Yankee's fans only)
What the crap are you even talking about? That's ridiculous, Pre. I'd give a wedgie and stuff you in a locker if we were in high school and I was bigger than you and you're a nerd. Still. Every time I venture into this thread, I learn something new, though. I learn who never played the game. I mean, REALLY played the game. Listen, pimples, if I wanna talk about zone defense, then I'll go to the On Hoops section. If I wanna find out which desipiots didn't date until their Proactiv kicked in, then I'll come here. If I wanna talk about guys that put everything they've got in America's pastime, then I'll probably just keep writing letters to Jim Leyland. That guy smokes cigarettes. And I bet he hates stats, too. I'm not sure. He hasn't written me back, yet. He's probably too busy punchin' out statfags.
Quote from: JD on August 13, 2009, 08:50:01 PM
Quote from: Pre on August 13, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
I can take a stab at it:
Basically, Ultimate Zone Rating divides the field into a group of zones, using SS as an (simplistic) example you'd have a zone for grounders between SS and 3B, between SS and the bag at second, slow rollers, etc (these aren't the real zones, but the idea of it). UZR then measures what percentage of plays a a player makes in each zone (converts them to an out) and compares them to an average. A 0 UZR would be league average.
Basically, it is good at exposing players like a Jeter who generally have a high fielding percentage on plays to them, but don't have the range to get to anything versus a player who might have a few more errors, but is able to make plays on a significantly higher amount of plays.
Dye specifically, fan graphs would argue that his defense for his career has been pretty bad. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=911&position=OF)
Main Criticisms of UZR:
Doesn't account for outfielder arm strength
Doesn't account for ability to turn double plays
Says Jeter is a bad SS (valid for Yankee's fans only)
What the crap are you even talking about? That's ridiculous, Pre. I'd give a wedgie and stuff you in a locker if we were in high school and I was bigger than you and you're a nerd. Still. Every time I venture into this thread, I learn something new, though. I learn who never played the game. I mean, REALLY played the game. Listen, pimples, if I wanna talk about zone defense, then I'll go to the On Hoops section. If I wanna find out which desipiots didn't date until their Proactiv kicked in, then I'll come here. If I wanna talk about guys that put everything they've got in America's pastime, then I'll probably just keep writing letters to Jim Leyland. That guy smokes cigarettes. And I bet he hates stats, too. I'm not sure. He hasn't written me back, yet. He's probably too busy punchin' out statfags.
I'd probably go gay for you, JD, but I'd still bone chicks because tits are sweet.
Quote from: JD on August 13, 2009, 08:50:01 PM
Quote from: Pre on August 13, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
I can take a stab at it:
Basically, Ultimate Zone Rating divides the field into a group of zones, using SS as an (simplistic) example you'd have a zone for grounders between SS and 3B, between SS and the bag at second, slow rollers, etc (these aren't the real zones, but the idea of it). UZR then measures what percentage of plays a a player makes in each zone (converts them to an out) and compares them to an average. A 0 UZR would be league average.
Basically, it is good at exposing players like a Jeter who generally have a high fielding percentage on plays to them, but don't have the range to get to anything versus a player who might have a few more errors, but is able to make plays on a significantly higher amount of plays.
Dye specifically, fan graphs would argue that his defense for his career has been pretty bad. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=911&position=OF)
Main Criticisms of UZR:
Doesn't account for outfielder arm strength
Doesn't account for ability to turn double plays
Says Jeter is a bad SS (valid for Yankee's fans only)
What the crap are you even talking about? That's ridiculous, Pre. I'd give a wedgie and stuff you in a locker if we were in high school and I was bigger than you and you're a nerd. Still. Every time I venture into this thread, I learn something new, though. I learn who never played the game. I mean, REALLY played the game. Listen, pimples, if I wanna talk about zone defense, then I'll go to the On Hoops section. If I wanna find out which desipiots didn't date until their Proactiv kicked in, then I'll come here. If I wanna talk about guys that put everything they've got in America's pastime, then I'll probably just keep writing letters to Jim Leyland. That guy smokes cigarettes. And I bet he hates stats, too. I'm not sure. He hasn't written me back, yet. He's probably too busy punchin' out statfags.
Can we get sweaty and high 5 sometime?
JD is the new SKO.
Quote from: Pre on August 13, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on August 12, 2009, 09:15:06 PM
Could someone give me a primer on some of the sabermetric defensive stats, namely UZR? I am attempting to argue that Jermaine Dye is a horrible defender and I feel that I cannot mount an objective defense.
I can take a stab at it:
Basically, Ultimate Zone Rating divides the field into a group of zones, using SS as an (simplistic) example you'd have a zone for grounders between SS and 3B, between SS and the bag at second, slow rollers, etc (these aren't the real zones, but the idea of it). UZR then measures what percentage of plays a a player makes in each zone (converts them to an out) and compares them to an average. A 0 UZR would be league average.
Basically, it is good at exposing players like a Jeter who generally have a high fielding percentage on plays to them, but don't have the range to get to anything versus a player who might have a few more errors, but is able to make plays on a significantly higher amount of plays.
Dye specifically, fan graphs would argue that his defense for his career has been pretty bad. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=911&position=OF)
Main Criticisms of UZR:
Doesn't account for outfielder arm strength
Doesn't account for ability to turn double plays
Says Jeter is a bad SS (valid for Yankee's fans only)
Additionally, I'm pretty sure that for part-time players it doesn't serve as an accurrate gauge as there's a +/- factor that could probably be refined a bit.
A gem from Derek Jeter (http://www.northjersey.com/sports/OConnor_How_Jeter_got_younger_at_age_35.html?page=all):
"You can't mathematically figure out how everybody plays defense, otherwise you're just playing Nintendo."
Zack Greinke: Statchugger (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/baseball/18pitcher.html)
Quote"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."
To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.
"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2009, 08:35:21 AM
Zack Greinke: Statchugger (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/baseball/18pitcher.html)
Quote"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."
To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.
"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.
And notice how the Royals didn't win shit cuz ur stats r meaningless, faggot. FIP don't win no fuckin ballgames.
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2009, 08:35:21 AM
Zack Greinke: Statchugger (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/baseball/18pitcher.html)
Quote"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."
To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.
"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.
Secksy... I'm very impressed the voters overlooked the wins. That seems to be one stat people can't stop looking at (at least on the pitching side of things). It's been nice to see some changes in the journalism world where people are using these advanced metrics (Bruce Miles). Also, Kaplan got all statfaggy on us. (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/david-kaplan-chicago-sports/2009/11/back-from-vacation--random-thoughts.html) I have yet to take the time to completely read the article to see if he analyzes it right, but I was just impressed he mentioned WAR and BABiP
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 18, 2009, 09:02:29 AM
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2009, 08:35:21 AM
Zack Greinke: Statchugger (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/baseball/18pitcher.html)
Quote"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."
To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.
"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.
Secksy... I'm very impressed the voters overlooked the wins. That seems to be one stat people can't stop looking at (at least on the pitching side of things). It's been nice to see some changes in the journalism world where people are using these advanced metrics (Bruce Miles). Also, Kaplan got all statfaggy on us. (http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/david-kaplan-chicago-sports/2009/11/back-from-vacation--random-thoughts.html) I have yet to take the time to completely read the article to see if he analyzes it right, but I was just impressed he mentioned WAR and BABiP
I didn't read the artricle, but I'm glad he finally caught up to 2005.
Quote from: R-V on November 18, 2009, 08:35:21 AM
Zack Greinke: Statchugger (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/sports/baseball/18pitcher.html)
Quote"David DeJesus had our best zone rating," Bannister said, referring to the Royals' left fielder. "So a lot of times, Zack would pitch for a fly ball at our park instead of a ground ball, just because the zone rating was better in our outfield and it was a big park."
To that end, Bannister introduced Greinke to FIP, or Fielding Independent Pitching, the statistic Greinke named Tuesday as his favorite. It is a formula that measures how well a pitcher performed, regardless of his fielders. According to fangraphs.com, Greinke had the best FIP in the majors.
"That's pretty much how I pitch, to try to keep my FIP as low as possible," Greinke said.
Good for Greinke, but I'm not sure "pitching for fly balls" makes a lot of sense.
File this under the utterly depressing category (http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/bill-james-strong-season-leading-index/)
QuoteI'm off to bed soon so I'm going to wait to explain this until tomorrow. I just wanted to put this up. Bill James came up with a method to predict whether or not a player who had 400 or more PA's in a season would be at least as good the following season. This was published in The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010. High scores are better, but all of these correspond to a percentage that will still be around 50%. For example, Dioner Navarro scored the highest among players in 2009 at 26 points. Throughout history, 333 players have had that same score and 173 were "at least as good or better" the following season. That's 52%. The lowest score in 2009 was Jorge Posada who had just 8 points. 22 players in history have had exactly 8 points and only 4 of them were at least as good or better (18%). In other words, it's not at all likely that Posada has as good a season in 2010 as he had in 2009. Below are the Cubs players points:
Mike Fontenot: 21
Alfonso Soriano: 20
Ryan Theriot: 19
Milton Bradley: 19
Kosuke Fukudome: 15
Derrek Lee: 11
Fontenot has a 42% chance of being at least as good or better in 2010
Soriano: 39%
Theriot: 38%
Bradley: 38%
Fukudome: 27%
Lee: 16%
At least as good or better means an OPS within .020 of the base season (2009) and at least 80% of the plate appearances as in the base season. Basically, there is a 42% chance that Mike Fontenot will get at least 336 PA and have an OPS of .657 or higher. There is a 58% chance that he does not.
Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was. Why he'd ask me, I don't know. But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.
One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number.
Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/
QuoteMulti-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason. That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase. The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011. The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million. The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years. Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.
Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008. It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts.
Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.
But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit.
Quote from: Andy on November 20, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was. Why he'd ask me, I don't know. But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.
One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number.
Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/
QuoteMulti-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason. That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase. The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011. The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million. The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years. Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.
Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008. It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts.
Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.
But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.
FWIW, here's the explanation of the wins/dollar values concept:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 20, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 20, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was. Why he'd ask me, I don't know. But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.
One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number.
Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/
QuoteMulti-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason. That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase. The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011. The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million. The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years. Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.
Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008. It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts.
Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.
But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.
So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.
This method doesn't adjust for the current market. Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure. Payrolls are going to be going down. Grabow is now vastly overpaid.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 20, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 20, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was. Why he'd ask me, I don't know. But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.
One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number.
Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/
QuoteMulti-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason. That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase. The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011. The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million. The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years. Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.
Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008. It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts.
Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.
But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.
So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.
This method doesn't adjust for the current market. Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure. Payrolls are going to be going down. Grabow is now vastly overpaid.
Who fucking wins ballgames? That's the stat I want to know. I'll pay a guy 9 zillion MW bucks if it means the Cubs win the World Series. Who cares how big his GAP is? You can take your stats and stuff them in a sack.
Quote from: Richard Chuggar on November 20, 2009, 10:15:13 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 20, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: Andy on November 20, 2009, 08:57:43 AM
Oh, Kap e-mailed me that day and asked what the difference between WAR and WARP was. Why he'd ask me, I don't know. But I knew whatever I told him he'd get wrong, and he did.
One thing about WAR (Wins Above Replacement) that pisses me off is that guys are applying monetary value to the number.
Like this crap from Another Cubs Blog
http://www.anothercubsblog.net/site/comments/cubs-finalize-deal-with-john-grabow/
QuoteMulti-year deals were signed for about $4.7 million per win last offseason. That would make the dollar per WAR value for 2010 around $5.17 million assuming the normal 10% increase. The value of the win would be $5.687 million in 2011. The average value over those 2 years is $5.4 million. The Cubs are paying him $7.5 million over 2 years meaning the Cubs have valued Grabow as providing 1.4 WAR over 2 years. Based solely on his park-adjusted WAR since 2006 that's more than reasonable.
Before you say the economy will keep it at $4.7 million, keep in mind the win was worth $4.4 million in 2008. It didn't increase by the expected 10%, but it still increased quite a bit for those who signed multi-year contracts.
Somehow he averages what WAR says Grabow would be worth over two years and then compares it to the total the Cubs will pay him.
But it doesn't matter, because it's all bullshit.
Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.
So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.
This method doesn't adjust for the current market. Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure. Payrolls are going to be going down. Grabow is now vastly overpaid.
Who fucking wins ballgames? That's the stat I want to know. I'll pay a guy 9 zillion MW bucks if it means the Cubs win the World Series. Who cares how big his GAP is? You can take your stats and stuff them in a sack.
That was directed at Chuck? I like stats and video games... It's a wonder TDubbs doesn't treat me like Kurt and BC.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on November 20, 2009, 09:30:55 AM
Quote from: IrishYeti on November 20, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Why is it bullshit? Applying a monetary value to WAR is effective. As fans, we keep bitching about how "this guy got too much" or "he's overpaid" etc. Why not have a standard that shows a person's actual dollar worth? Seems pretty good and practical to me.
So long as you adjust it to the current market, yeah, it makes sense.
This method doesn't adjust for the current market. Grabow may be appropriately paid in 2010 and 2011 based on the 2009 salary structure. Payrolls are going to be going down. Grabow is now vastly overpaid.
WAR<-->Money makes tons of sense, what makes no sense in the world is that bullshit adjusted WAR shit they are showing there.
A WAR of 1.0 would have made Grabow the Cubs most effective reliever by about double last year.
Grabow's WAR for last season was .2, worth about $1 million. (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1848&position=P#value)
THI.
I knew those numbers were bullshit.
Baseball Reference: Mostly obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/intro-to-splits) or completely obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=369&position=OF&season=2009)
And yes I picked Milty on purpose
Quote from: Yeti on February 08, 2010, 12:45:56 PM
Baseball Reference: Mostly obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/intro-to-splits) or completely obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=369&position=OF&season=2009)
And yes I picked Milty on purpose
Racist.
Bump. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100402)
IT'S SAFE TO COME OUTSIDE
The Sports Guy has finally decided that advanced statistics are now acceptable...
Quote from: Yeti on February 08, 2010, 12:45:56 PM
Baseball Reference: Mostly obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/intro-to-splits) or completely obsolete (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=369&position=OF&season=2009)
And yes I picked Milty on purpose
Oh yea, the other thing that makes Faggraphs amazing: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dashboard-section
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called ‘steroids era’. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn’t just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn’t just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
I haven't commented there in weeks. Sorry to ruin your fun.. And I go to BNC for the inadvertent comedy. He doesn't intend it but his posts are funny because he's so retarded, just like I go to FDB2 often just to laugh at those fuckers. I need to find people dumber than me. Those places satisfy that.
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
I haven't commented there in weeks. Sorry to ruin your fun.. And I go to BNC for the inadvertent comedy. He doesn't intend it but his posts are funny because he's so retarded, just like I go to FDB2 often just to laugh at those fuckers. I need to find people dumber than me. Those places satisfy that.
Did you recently attend the seminar entitled
How to Take a Joke In the Worst Possible Way hosted by KurtEvans?
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 01:10:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
I haven't commented there in weeks. Sorry to ruin your fun.. And I go to BNC for the inadvertent comedy. He doesn't intend it but his posts are funny because he's so retarded, just like I go to FDB2 often just to laugh at those fuckers. I need to find people dumber than me. Those places satisfy that.
Did you recently attend the seminar entitled How to Take a Joke In the Worst Possible Way hosted by KurtEvans?
That seminar? Sponsored by ACB.
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 01:10:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
I haven't commented there in weeks. Sorry to ruin your fun.. And I go to BNC for the inadvertent comedy. He doesn't intend it but his posts are funny because he's so retarded, just like I go to FDB2 often just to laugh at those fuckers. I need to find people dumber than me. Those places satisfy that.
Did you recently attend the seminar entitled How to Take a Joke In the Worst Possible Way hosted by KurtEvans?
But, I wasn't butthurt about it. Just asplainin'. But yea, I could have just left it alone. Bump that thread fuckers.
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 01:43:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on April 15, 2010, 01:10:00 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 12:56:31 PM
Quote from: Bort on April 15, 2010, 11:46:29 AM
Quote from: Kermit IV on April 15, 2010, 11:45:19 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 15, 2010, 08:32:00 AM
DPD
BEST CUBS BLOG MAKES IT "BIG TIME" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2010/04/why-baseball-redux.html)
QuoteA blogger at the Bad News Cubs, writing about the juiced ball, put it well (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2007/07/26/the-juiced-baseball-of-1987-endless-home-run-stats/):
Someone from another blog speculated that perhaps only 5% of baseball used performance enhancing drugs through the current and so-called 'steroids era'. But the numbers seem to argue against that. When baseball home run production surges from 131 per team to 158 per team, it isn't just one guy per team. When it surges up to 177 per team, you really know it wasn't just one guy per team.
Read every motherfucking word you fucking gay fucking faggots (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-new-yorker-reads-every-word/)
I don't know what's harder to believe. That you read the New Yorker or that you still read Bad News Cubs.
Gives him something to do in between commenting on ACB.
I haven't commented there in weeks. Sorry to ruin your fun.. And I go to BNC for the inadvertent comedy. He doesn't intend it but his posts are funny because he's so retarded, just like I go to FDB2 often just to laugh at those fuckers. I need to find people dumber than me. Those places satisfy that.
Did you recently attend the seminar entitled How to Take a Joke In the Worst Possible Way hosted by KurtEvans?
But, I wasn't butthurt about it. Just asplainin'. But yea, I could have just left it alone. Bump that thread fuckers.
The issue isn't whether you post there all the time or never post there but rather the woefully uninspiring cut of your jib.
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Quote from: Yeti on May 13, 2010, 09:19:26 AM
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Morph can call up the internet archive to get it all.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 13, 2010, 09:29:22 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 13, 2010, 09:19:26 AM
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Morph can call up the internet archive to get it all.
Internet Wayback Machine has a 6-month lag, but...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080612061608/http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/
Quote from: morpheus on May 13, 2010, 09:48:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 13, 2010, 09:29:22 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 13, 2010, 09:19:26 AM
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Morph can call up the internet archive to get it all.
Internet Wayback Machine has a 6-month lag, but...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080612061608/http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/
ChuckD showed me the most recent one: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HVEJ-aOE9ykJ:badnewscubs.wordpress.com/+badnewscubs&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Quote from: Yeti on May 13, 2010, 09:19:26 AM
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Aw, no more stupid fucking Bad News Cubs, you stupid gay mouth breathing butthole fucking mother assfucking faggots?
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on May 14, 2010, 07:30:14 AM
Quote from: Yeti on May 13, 2010, 09:19:26 AM
/thread (http://badnewscubs.wordpress.com/)
Tis a sad sad day:
QuoteThe authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available.
Aw, no more stupid fucking Bad News Cubs, you stupid gay mouth breathing butthole fucking mother assfucking faggots?
I guess the internet had its fill of TRUTH.
So these gutless assholes are 6th in the NL in OBP and 4th in slugging. Pretty good right? But it seams to me, anecdotally, that this offense is all or nothing: either 2 or 3 runs or 7 or 8 runs.
I ask you this, statguzzlers: is there some sort of team run variance type stat that measures the volatility/inconsistency of a particular offense compared to the rest of the league? I'm curious if the Cubs are any more hot/cold than other offenses.
Quote from: R-V on May 18, 2010, 08:41:11 AM
So these gutless assholes are 6th in the NL in OBP and 4th in slugging. Pretty good right? But it seams to me, anecdotally, that this offense is all or nothing: either 2 or 3 runs or 7 or 8 runs.
I ask you this, statguzzlers: is there some sort of team run variance type stat that measures the volatility/inconsistency of a particular offense compared to the rest of the league? I'm curious if the Cubs are any more hot/cold than other offenses.
Why?
Joe Pos calling out Billy Beane. (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/16/the-day-moneyball-died/?eref=sihp)
Quote from: PenPho on June 17, 2010, 06:52:03 PM
Joe Pos calling out Billy Beane. (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/16/the-day-moneyball-died/?eref=sihp)
Good read and kinda funny, too. Soccer is permeating everything holy and American and hopefully someone on this board throws a fit that Cristiano Ronaldo would be proud of.
Max Scherzer of the Detroit Tigers is a statfagatron (Rotoworld):
"Max Scherzer told Steve Kornacki of MLive.com that he utilizes advanced metrics to evaluate his pitching performances.
Scherzer was first introduced to advanced metrics through his brother and regularly uses PitchFX and Brooks Baseball to study his results. "And this game still comes down to pitch execution, scouting reports and mechanics," said Scherzer. "But advanced metrics helped me see things I had not seen before." We already liked Scherzer a whole bunch, but he just went up a few notches in our book."
If it takes you more than 20 moves to solve a Rubik's Cube, you're an idiot:
http://www.cube20.org/
QuoteWe have known for fifteen years that there are positions that require 20 moves; we have just proved that there are none that require more.
Excuse me while I am as timely as a common PenFoe, but......
Fuck wOBA, fuck WAR, fuck OPS+, allow me to introduce OPSBIs! (http://espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post/_/id/389/simple-stats-to-evaluate-teams-players)
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on July 13, 2011, 01:25:41 PM
Excuse me while I am as timely as a common PenFoe, but......
Fuck wOBA, fuck WAR, fuck OPS+, allow me to introduce OPSBIs! (http://espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post/_/id/389/simple-stats-to-evaluate-teams-players)
It's awesome because adding RBIs tells you so much more about the relative baseball playing skill of those players.
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2011, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on July 13, 2011, 01:25:41 PM
Excuse me while I am as timely as a common PenFoe, but......
Fuck wOBA, fuck WAR, fuck OPS+, allow me to introduce OPSBIs! (http://espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post/_/id/389/simple-stats-to-evaluate-teams-players)
It's awesome because adding RBIs tells you so much more about the relative baseball playing skill of those players.
Hey man, there's a huge variance between the top 11 in OPS and OPSBI - that's why Theo makes the big bucks.
Seriously, why do I think someone fed this shit to Bowden as a "$5 says the asshole writes it up!" thing?
Quote from: Fork on July 14, 2011, 07:51:28 AM
Quote from: morpheus on July 13, 2011, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Alrish Yeltin on July 13, 2011, 01:25:41 PM
Excuse me while I am as timely as a common PenFoe, but......
Fuck wOBA, fuck WAR, fuck OPS+, allow me to introduce OPSBIs! (http://espn.go.com/blog/the-gms-office/post/_/id/389/simple-stats-to-evaluate-teams-players)
It's awesome because adding RBIs tells you so much more about the relative baseball playing skill of those players.
Hey man, there's a huge variance between the top 11 in OPS and OPSBI - that's why Theo makes the big bucks.
Seriously, why do I think someone fed this shit to Bowden as a "$5 says the asshole writes it up!" thing?
I think you misread...
QuoteDue to confidentiality agreements and proprietary rights, I can't share my experiences with advanced statistical systems during my years as a general manager. However, as much as the public is aware of and embraces statistics like Wins Above Replacement (WAR), WHIP, and OPS, many clubs have algorithms that are much more complicated and helpful.
Baseball also has a simple to side to it. I get asked all the time which two or three common statistics I would pick to evaluate a team or players. My quick answer would be the following:
1. For a team: Run differential
2. For a hitter: OPS + RBIs, or OPSBIs
3. For a pitcher: ERA, WHIP, SO
OPSBI is
all Bowden.
And, while he could have made millions selling his proprietary system to the highest bidder, he's gracious enough to share it with the world free of charge. For sake of knowledge.
We're all in his debt.
Quote(Of course, with leadoff hitters, OBP+R+SB would be a better barometer, so you have to know the type of hitter your looking at)
DPD...
http://twitter.com/king_kaufman/status/81358405524131840
QuoteOPSBI is so nutty no one's even noticing Bowden's using R minus ER for run differential to evaluate teams. #JimBowdenstats
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on July 14, 2011, 08:41:39 AM
DPD...
http://twitter.com/king_kaufman/status/81358405524131840
QuoteOPSBI is so nutty no one's even noticing Bowden's using R minus ER for run differential to evaluate teams. #JimBowdenstats
WHAT AN IDITO!
*snorts*
*adjusts glasses*
http://www.fangraphs.com/community/index.php/was-woba-actually-invented-nearly-100-years-ago/
QuoteReturning to the present day, I'm currently in the midst of writing my college thesis (yes, it's on baseball), and I recently came across a piece of research that sounded my "wow, everything I thought I knew about baseball is wrong" alarm to claxon-like levels. In the 1915 edition of Baseball Magazine (distributed from 1908-1957), there's an article (http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/BBM/1916/bbm165j.pdf) written by F.C. Lane that would make even Tom Tango take notice (assuming he isn't already aware of its existence): "Why the System of Batting Averages Should Be Changed: Statistics Lie at the Foundation of Baseball Popularity — Batting Records Are the Favorite — And Yet Batting Records Are Unnecessarily Inaccurate."
Lane opens his discussion with a question: "Suppose you asked a close personal friend how much change he had in his pocket and he replied, 'Twelve coins,' would you think you had learned much about the precise state of his exchequer?" He goes on to compare two mens' respective financial situations: Man A, with "twelve coins" consisting of a combination of quarters, nickels, and dimes; and Man B, with twelve silver dollars. Saying both men have equal financial means is equivalent to the system of tracking batting averages, he explains. "One batter, we may say, made twelve singles, three or four of them of the scratchiest possible variety. The other also made twelve hits, but all of them were good ringing drives, clean cut and decisive, three of them were doubles, one a triple, and one a home run...Is there no way to separate the dimes from the nickels and give each its proper value?" Sound familiar?
"If these averages mislead or give mistaken ideas of batting ability they forfeit their only excuse in being?"
...
"Let it be hoped that 1916, the dawn of a new day in baseball affairs, will witness as well the dawn of a new day in the outworn method of keeping batting averages. The time has passed when the public will any longer swallow the palpable falsehood that a home run is no better than a scratch single. It knows better, instinctively feels better, and should be told the truth by a presentation of the season's statistics founded upon a sane, workmanlike basis."
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/F.C._Lane
http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=781&pid=16911
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
I'm still sitting on the goldmine that is CRAFT.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
I'm still sitting on the goldmine that is CRAFT.
Take your time. Don't rush anything.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
I'm still sitting on the goldmine that is CRAFT.
I don't understand why this website wasn't universally hailed. It's awesome.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
I'm still sitting on the goldmine that is CRAFT.
Take your time. Don't rush anything.
:(
Quote from: ChuckD on January 19, 2012, 07:30:53 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 03:26:05 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on January 19, 2012, 12:16:43 PM
The internet rediscovers OMS. (http://junkstats.com/mlb/eddie-stanky-all-stars/)
Somebody has too much time on his hands.
Or possibly not enough. (http://www.pseubermetrics.com/)
I'm still sitting on the goldmine that is CRAFT.
Take your time. Don't rush anything.
:(
Double :(
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
I'm optimistic for Romney, and I think projecting this election is problematic as patterns of people have changed significantly over the past 12, 8 and even 4 years. For example, just 1 in 10 people respond to pollsters. It used to be 1 in 3. We all know about cellphones vs. landlines. I've been getting Congressional pollsters polling me on people outside my district. I tell them these candidates are not going to be on my ballot, and they continue polling anyway. Thus, I think Nate's going to have a more difficult time than before.
However, he was dead-on in 2008. And while he has his biases, etc., he's very transparent about them and very transparent about his methodology. Ignore him at your peril. He has Romney at a 25% chance. Given what Silver has to work with, it wouldn't be a shocker to see Romney win.
Question I'd have for Silver -- is there any way to research polling numbers from 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992 and project what the projections would have been at that time? I think it would be interesting and shine a clearer light on how good his model is.
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
After (before?) you died, this all went down on Thrill's FB feed.
Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
He has Romney at a 25% chance. Given what Silver has to work with, it wouldn't be a shocker to see Romney win.
Yeah... As commanding as a 75-25 leads may intuitively sound, as I saw someone point out somewhere else recently (possibly in the comments to a post over here (http://election.princeton.edu/)), a 25% chance of winning is equivalent to the odds of flipping a coin twice and it coming up heads on both flips. I.e., not totally outlandish.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
"The only thing I'm doing is weighting."
(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/dean-chambers.jpg)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
Really? You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/8/83046/1540837-are_you_a_wizard_large.jpeg)
Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
I'm optimistic for Romney, and I think projecting this election is problematic as patterns of people have changed significantly over the past 12, 8 and even 4 years. For example, just 1 in 10 people respond to pollsters. It used to be 1 in 3. We all know about cellphones vs. landlines. I've been getting Congressional pollsters polling me on people outside my district. I tell them these candidates are not going to be on my ballot, and they continue polling anyway. Thus, I think Nate's going to have a more difficult time than before.
However, he was dead-on in 2008. And while he has his biases, etc., he's very transparent about them and very transparent about his methodology. Ignore him at your peril. He has Romney at a 25% chance. Given what Silver has to work with, it wouldn't be a shocker to see Romney win.
Question I'd have for Silver -- is there any way to research polling numbers from 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992 and project what the projections would have been at that time? I think it would be interesting and shine a clearer light on how good his model is.
You're the only person in America who actually like Mitt Romney, including Mitt Romney.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
Really? You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?
(http://i.imgur.com/DUP8v.png)
Quote from: Wheezer on October 29, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
Really? You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?
(http://i.imgur.com/DUP8v.png)
Finally, a photograph captures Yetti's best side.
Quote from: Tinker to Evers to Chance on October 29, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on October 29, 2012, 03:59:45 PM
Quote from: R-V on October 29, 2012, 03:44:21 PM
It was bad enough when Nate Silver ruined baseball by forcing all of us to gargle the balls of sabermetrics. Now he has to ruin GUT FEELING (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html#comments), unskewed (http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls) political predictions too?!
Quote"If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don`t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That`s not possible," Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, said on PBS earlier this month. "The pollsters tell us what`s happening now. When they start projecting, they`re getting into silly land."
Quote"Nate Silver says this is a 73.6 percent chance that the president is going to win? Nobody in that campaign thinks they have a 73 percent chance — they think they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning. And you talk to the Romney people, it's the same thing," Scarborough said. "Both sides understand that it is close, and it could go either way. And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops and microphones for the next 10 days, because they're jokes."
QuoteNate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the "Mr. New Castrati" voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
Post your (small) picture, Romeo.
The final author in question: (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/profile_large/hash/55/33/553399ad46b0d0f230144016d970c5fc.JPG)
Really? You hoopleheads bolded the wizard part and didn't go with this?
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/8/83046/1540837-are_you_a_wizard_large.jpeg)
(http://i.imgur.com/N4YuR.jpg)
Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PM
I'm optimistic for Romney, and I think projecting this election is problematic as patterns of people have changed significantly over the past 12, 8 and even 4 years. For example, just 1 in 10 people respond to pollsters. It used to be 1 in 3. We all know about cellphones vs. landlines. I've been getting Congressional pollsters polling me on people outside my district. I tell them these candidates are not going to be on my ballot, and they continue polling anyway. Thus, I think Nate's going to have a more difficult time than before.
He addressed the cell phone issue here if you're interested.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/obamas-lead-looks-stronger-in-polls-that-include-cellphones/
Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PMHowever, he was dead-on in 2008. And while he has his biases, etc., he's very transparent about them and very transparent about his methodology.
As you said, he's been open about the fact that he voted for Obama in 2008 and often votes for Democrats. But if we assume, as has been mentioned here about 900 times, that people responds to incentives - he will only continue to have a job and get wide readership if his predictions are right more often than not. So while he may vote for Obama, his livelihood is based on getting things right, not on advocating for Democrats.
Quote from: Brownie on October 29, 2012, 04:40:26 PMQuestion I'd have for Silver -- is there any way to research polling numbers from 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992 and project what the projections would have been at that time? I think it would be interesting and shine a clearer light on how good his model is.
I swear I remember reading something about him running the model for 2000 and 2004, but Google is not finding it for me. I do believe the model was built based on this method - finding out what factors were ultimately the best predictors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#cite_ref-22) of the outcome of past elections.
QuotePolls on FiveThirtyEight.com are weighted using a half-life of thirty days using the formula 0.5P/30 where 'P' is the number of days transpired since the median date that the poll was in the field. The formula is based on an analysis of 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 state-by-state polling data
Psst... Republicans. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you. When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.
It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is. What a fucking waste of time.
Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you. When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.
It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is. What a fucking waste of time.
Once again voting for Tonker.
Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you. When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.
It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is. What a fucking waste of time.
For the most part, you're right. That said...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html
QuoteIn recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney's campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. ("We're going to win," said one of the former Massachusetts governor's closest advisers. "Seriously, 305 electoral votes.")
This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush's spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/politics/romney-campaign-fights-for-electoral-votes.html
QuoteThe enthusiasm gathering around Mr. Romney came into view on Wednesday as he traveled through Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, appearing before thousands of supporters as he fought to keep alive the sense that he had gained stature and credibility as an alternative to Mr. Obama at the debates and was on an upward trajectory.
Cultivating the image that he is a winner, his aides say, could be Mr. Romney's best strategy for actually winning.
Maybe you think that's retarded, too. Maybe it is.
But there
is something to be said for the voter enthusiasm factor in this election.
I'm willing to bet a good part of Romney's post-debate polling bump can be chalked up to enthusiasm. Likewise Obama's post-convention bounce.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 10:44:41 AM
Quote from: Tonker on October 30, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Psst... Republicans. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction is bollocks, good for you. When he's subsequently proven wrong you can have a really, really good laugh at his expense. If you think that Nate Silver's prediction might actually be right, making everybody else think that he's wrong ISN'T ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THE ELECTION.
It's a fucking prediction, and it is what it is. What a fucking waste of time.
For the most part, you're right. That said...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html
QuoteIn recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney's campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. ("We're going to win," said one of the former Massachusetts governor's closest advisers. "Seriously, 305 electoral votes.")
This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
Karl Rove employed exactly this strategy in 2000. As we now know, the race was excruciatingly close, and Al Gore won the national vote by half a percentage point. But at the time, Bush projected a jaunty air of confidence. Rove publicly predicted Bush would win 320 electoral votes. Bush even spent the final days stumping in California, supposedly because he was so sure of victory he wanted an icing-on-the-cake win in a deep blue state. Campaign reporters generally fell for Bush's spin, portraying him as riding the winds of momentum and likewise presenting Al Gore as desperate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/us/politics/romney-campaign-fights-for-electoral-votes.html
QuoteThe enthusiasm gathering around Mr. Romney came into view on Wednesday as he traveled through Colorado, Nevada and Iowa, appearing before thousands of supporters as he fought to keep alive the sense that he had gained stature and credibility as an alternative to Mr. Obama at the debates and was on an upward trajectory.
Cultivating the image that he is a winner, his aides say, could be Mr. Romney's best strategy for actually winning.
Maybe you think that's retarded, too. Maybe it is.
But there is something to be said for the voter enthusiasm factor in this election.
I'm willing to bet a good part of Romney's post-debate polling bump can be chalked up to enthusiasm. Likewise Obama's post-convention bounce.
I'm not really reading any of this, but this feels like it might be of relevance.
"Why Liberals Are Totally Gay for Nate Silver" (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-liberals-cling-to-nate-silver)
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
That was a nice story on Silver. What I found revealing was his concern that his predictions drive news and how he really doesn't feel comfortable with his forecasts driving results. That all said, keep it in perspective.
Per Baseball Prospectus, where Silver cut his teeth:
On Aug. 30, the White Sox had an 85% chance of making the playoffs and they were at 69% as late as Sept. 23. On Sep. 9, Baltimore's chances of making the playoffs was only 26%. So, in BC's words, we've seen it happen too many times!
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
Wouldn't be ROMENTUM?
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
A devastating hurricane on the east coast, depriving millions of Americans of life, liberty, and property is the exact gift the Romney campaign ordered for its push towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Quote from: Internet Apex on October 30, 2012, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
Wouldn't be ROMENTUM?
(http://www.jeffreymd.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/omentum.jpg)
I will leave investigation of the rest of this to the non-squeamish (http://homepage.smc.edu/zuk_patricia/Anatomy%201/Cat%20Atlas%20pics/Internal%20cat%20anatomy/intestines%20and%20omentum.JPG").
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
And now back up again to 77.4%
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
And now back up again to 77.4%
We have movement.
Quote from: Eli on October 31, 2012, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
And now back up again to 77.4%
We have movement.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li6p1ptgFf1qi6re3o1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Tony on October 31, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 31, 2012, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
And now back up again to 77.4%
We have movement.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li6p1ptgFf1qi6re3o1_500.jpg)
78.4%
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Tony on October 31, 2012, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: Eli on October 31, 2012, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 31, 2012, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on October 30, 2012, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Brownie on October 30, 2012, 11:45:00 AM
Obama's win expectancy dropped to 72.9% in 24 hours, so we have movement, folks.
Yup... Down from 74.6% on Oct 28.
Which was up from 73.6% on Oct 27.
Which was down from 74.4% on Oct 26.
Which was up from 73.1% on Oct 25.
Which was up from 71.0% on Oct 24.
Which was up form 68.1% on Oct 23.
Which was down from 72.0% on Aug 10.
Which was up from 67.7% on July 13.
Which was up form 63.7% on May 31.
MITTMENTUM!
And now back up again to 77.4%
We have movement.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li6p1ptgFf1qi6re3o1_500.jpg)
78.4%
SURPRISE! Obama created a hurricane and now he's racing to his second term. And Nate Silver was in on it the WHOLE TIME.
CONSPIRACY!!!!!
79.0%
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/oct-31-obamas-electoral-college-firewall-holding-in-polls/
QuoteMr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team (http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php) winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.
But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama's chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.
Not coincidentally, these are also about Mr. Obama's chances of winning Ohio, according to the forecast.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2012, 11:11:41 AM
79.0%
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/oct-31-obamas-electoral-college-firewall-holding-in-polls/
QuoteMr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team (http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php) winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.
But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama's chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.
Not coincidentally, these are also about Mr. Obama's chances of winning Ohio, according to the forecast.
Who has the ball in this scenario?
That has no impact, or just overall it's 79% chance of winning?
Quote from: PenPho on November 01, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 01, 2012, 11:11:41 AM
79.0%
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/oct-31-obamas-electoral-college-firewall-holding-in-polls/
QuoteMr. Obama is not a sure thing, by any means. It is a close race. His chances of holding onto his Electoral College lead and converting it into another term are equivalent to the chances of an N.F.L. team (http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php) winning when it leads by a field goal with three minutes left to play in the fourth quarter. There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and sometimes they will.
But it turns out that an N.F.L. team that leads by a field goal with three minutes left to go winds up winning the game 79 percent of the time. Those were Mr. Obama's chances in the FiveThirtyEight forecast as of Wednesday: 79 percent.
Not coincidentally, these are also about Mr. Obama's chances of winning Ohio, according to the forecast.
Who has the ball in this scenario?
That has no impact, or just overall it's 79% chance of winning?
Ohio State? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html)
Oh shit, they're playing Illinois at home this weekend.
Quote from: Brownie on November 01, 2012, 11:40:34 AM
Ohio State? (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html)
God dammit, Slate.
80.9%
http://markcoddington.com/2012/10/31/nate-silver-journalism-politics-knowledge-epistemology/
QuoteThe more I think about the rift (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/nate-silver-romney-clearly-could-still-win-147618.html) between political journalism and Nate Silver, the more it seems that it's one that's fundamentally an issue of epistemology — how journalists know what they know. Here's why I think that's the case.
When we talk about the epistemology of journalism, it all eventually ties into objectivity. The journalistic norm of objectivity is more than just a careful neutrality or attempt to appear unbiased; for journalists, it's the grounds on which they claim the authority to describe reality to us. And the authority of objectivity is rooted in a particular process.
That process is very roughly this: Journalists get access to privileged information from official sources, then evaluate, filter, and order it through the rather ineffable quality alternatively known as "news judgment," "news sense," or "savvy (http://jayrosen.posterous.com/the-savvy-press-and-their-exemption-from-the)." This norm of objectivity is how political journalists say to the public (and to themselves), "This is why you can trust what we say we know — because we found it out through this process." (This is far from a new observation – there are decades (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2776752?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101226915313) of sociological (http://www.amazon.com/Deciding-Whats-News-Newsweek-American/dp/0810122375/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351733444&sr=8-1&keywords=deciding+what%27s+news) research (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zs0lthzEwQUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA283&dq=gatekeeping+and+press-government+relations&ots=g1EGKp9h7J&sig=_xhHWyot0fN48ZSk-EEQSjwaIe4#v=onepage&q&f=false) on this.)
Silver's process — his epistemology — is almost exactly the opposite of this:
Where political journalists' information is privileged, his is public, coming from poll results that all the rest of us see, too.
Where political journalists' information is evaluated through a subjective and nebulous professional/cultural sense of judgment, his evaluation is systematic and scientifically based. It involves judgment, too, but because it's based in a scientific process (http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/146775-interview-nate-silver-explains/), we can trace how he applied that judgment to reach his conclusions.
Both of those different ways of knowing inevitably result in different types of conclusions. Silver's conclusions are at once much more specific and much less certain than those of the political punditry. The process of journalistic objectivity can't possibly produce that kind of specificity; that's outside of its epistemological capabilities.
...
The other objection political journalists/pundits have to Silver's process is evident here, too. They don't just have a problem with how he knows what he knows, but with how he states it, too. Essentially, they are mistaking specificity for certainty. To them, the specificity of Silver's projections smack of arrogance because, again, their ways of knowing are incapable of producing that kind of specificity. It has to be an overstatement.
In actuality, of course, Silver's specificity isn't arrogance at all — it's the natural product of a scientific, statistical way of producing knowledge. Statistical analyses produce specific numbers by their very nature. That doesn't mean they're certain: In fact, the epistemology has long been far more tentative in reaching conclusions than the epistemology of journalism. As many people have noted (http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/30/why-pundits-and-politicians-hate-nyt-election-forecaster-nate-silver/) over the past few days, a probability is not a prediction. Silver himself has repeatedly (http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/01/nyt-election-oracle-fivethirtyeight-on-why-blogging-is-great-for-science/) called (http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/146775-interview-nate-silver-explains/) for less certainty in political analysis, not more. But that split between specificity and certainty is a foreign concept to the journalistic epistemology.
...
When journalistic objectivity is confronted with scientific objectivity, its circuits are fried.
More statfaggotry for you dong-sippers out there (Yeti): http://election.princeton.edu/romentum-rove-1nov2012.php
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
He wrote the Black Swan?
Well, I think we should at least listen to what he has to say.
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhtsskV0Bb1qhsbwzo1_500.gif)
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
Lately I've been more interested in the psychology of cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
Lately I've been more interested in the psychology of cognitive dissonance.
I can imagine why.
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 03:30:57 PM
Quote from: Eli on November 02, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
Lately I've been more interested in the psychology of cognitive dissonance.
I can imagine why.
"Silver stormed onto the scene in 2008 when, according to his
acolytes..."
Ah yes that's really some genuine language.
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
He wrote the Black Swan?
No. He merely name-checked it.
As he notes when he mentioned it, Nassim Taleb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) wrote "The Black Swan".
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2012, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
He wrote the Black Swan?
No. He merely name-checked it.
As he notes when he mentioned it, Nassim Taleb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) wrote "The Black Swan".
I'll just assume you missed the .gif.
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 03:35:50 PM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 02, 2012, 03:35:14 PM
Quote from: PenPho on November 02, 2012, 02:56:22 PM
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
He wrote the Black Swan?
No. He merely name-checked it.
As he notes when he mentioned it, Nassim Taleb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) wrote "The Black Swan".
I'll just assume you missed the .gif.
Not enough sodomy for his taste.
Quote from: morpheus on November 02, 2012, 02:50:01 PM
If you're interested in a genuine critique (http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/is-nate-silvers-value-at-risk/) of Nate Silver's model...
QuoteThis takes us back to Nassim Taleb's key insight: despite our best efforts, we humans are just not that good at predicting the future. The main assumption underlying Nate Silver's Obama bet this year is that the state polls will be correct. Maybe they will be, even though three states were wrong in 2010, two states were wrong in 2008, one state was wrong in 2004 (WI), and a very important state in 2000 was incorrectly called by most pollsters.
Nate Silver's model could very well forecast every state correctly next week, assuming the polls accurately reflect the true voting population. But if they're wrong, it'll be Nate Silver whose value is at risk. If that happens, I have a great title for his next book: "The Snake and the Oil."
That reads like a pretty weak "critique" to me.
Silver has been totally up front about the differences between the national polls and the state polls. Particularly of late, as there has been a rather consistent discrepancy between the two for a while now.
From Wednesday (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/oct-30-what-state-polls-suggest-about-the-national-popular-vote/):
QuoteBut perhaps national polls tell the right story of the race instead — meaning that the state polls systematically overrate Mr. Obama's standing?
It's certainly possible. (It keeps me up late at night.) If the polls in states like Ohio and Wisconsin are wrong, then FiveThirtyEight — and all of our competitors that build projections based on state polls — will not have a happy Nov. 6.
With that said, our decision to cast our lot mostly with the state polls is not arbitrary. In recent years, they've been a slightly more unbiased indicator of how the election will play out.
...
In recent elections — since state polling data became more robust — it's the state polls that have done a bit better. This was especially so in 1996, when national polls implied a double-digit victory for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole (and Ross Perot) but state polls were more in line with the single-digit victory that he actually achieved. In 2000, state polls provided an accurate portrayal of a too-close-to-call race, while national polls missed high on George W. Bush vs. Al Gore.
There have been other years like 1992 in which the national polls did a bit better. But on average since that year, the state polls have had a bias of 1.1 percentage points — half as much as the national polls, which have had a 2.1-point bias instead.
We're approaching the point where Mr. Romney may need the state polls to be systematically biased against him in order to win the Electoral College. And that certainly could turn out to be the case: if Mr. Romney wins the popular vote by more than about two percentage points, for example, he'll be very likely to cobble together a winning electoral map, somehow and some way. (And he'll be a virtual lock if the results are in line with Mr. Romney's best national polls, like the Gallup survey, which put him four or five points ahead.)
But the historical evidence weighs in slightly more heavily on behalf of the state polls, in my view, when they seem to contradict the national ones. If the state polls are right, than Mr. Obama is not just the favorite in the Electoral College but probably also in the popular vote.
Refer also to this Sam Wang post I linked to above (http://election.princeton.edu/romentum-rove-1nov2012.php) and this recent NPR interview with both Silver and Wang (http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/10/19/2012/making-sense-of-presidential-polls.html).
So, Nate's been up front about his model's dependence on polling (by Tuesday, his fundamentals-based modeling will have been completely phased out of the projection, leaving
only polling data behind his projection) and on state polls in particular.
He's shared, often at great length, the statistically-informed reasons behind the choices he's made with his model. And the whole damn thing is (as Davis himself attests), recreateable by others. At least in principle, if not in every single detail.
And this makes him
a snake oil salesman?Is Davis' hand-waving about Nassim Taleb and uncertainty really that much well-informed that Scarborough's "50.1%"?
This is pretty clear cut. The ones arguing that Nate Silver's methods are wrong are the Jim Hendry's to Nate Silver's Billy Beane.
There is a vested interest in the pundit class to not have it boil down to numbers. Why pay Dick Morris et al for punditry if they can be replaced for free with an algorithm?
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nov-1-the-simple-case-for-saying-obama-is-the-favorite/
QuoteIf you are following some of the same people that I do on Twitter, you may have noticed some pushback about our contention that Barack Obama is a favorite (and certainly not a lock) to be re-elected. I haven't come across too many analyses suggesting that Mitt Romney is the favorite. (There are exceptions.) But there are plenty of people who say that the race is a "tossup."
What I find confounding about this is that the argument we're making is exceedingly simple. Here it is:
QuoteObama's ahead in Ohio.
A somewhat-more-complicated version:
QuoteMr. Obama is leading in the polls of Ohio and other states that would suffice for him to win 270 electoral votes, and by a margin that has historically translated into victory a fairly high percentage of the time.
http://election.princeton.edu/believe-national-or-state-polls-2nov2012.php
QuoteImagine for a moment that national and state polls use exactly the same methods (not exactly true, but close enough). Historically, pollsters as a group do well. But they aren't perfect. In 2000-2008, national-poll medians missed the final outcome by 0.3%, 1.4%, and 2.5%, despite the fact that perfect methods would have missed by 0.6% on average. So there's a large systematic error. How would this affect one's snapshot view of the national and state race?
This year, the national race is close. A systematic error of 1-2% would make it hard to accurately determine who was in the lead nationally. But state races are usually less close. Even Ohio, a critical swing state, has a median of Obama +3.0 +/- 0.5%, a lead that would not be altered by that systematic error. Indeed, at the moment only two states are within range of flipping in such a way: Virginia and Florida. The likely outcome of the other 49 races would still be determined correctly. The Presidency is decided by winner-take-all elections in each state. Therefore our Meta-Analysis of State Polls is likely to come closer tothe correct result than national polls. In coming days I'll combine the two to come up with a final prediction of the popular vote margin.
I should say that for similar reasons, the U.S. system of electing a President is more fraud-proof than a simple popular vote. Even if there were voting error in one state, the effects would be contained there, like flooding on a compartmented ship. Without the Electoral College, every time there was a close national race we'd have the Florida 2000 dispute (Bush v. Gore) in every precinct in the country. Blech.
This is a SPORTZ thread, people!
Quote from: Yeti on November 02, 2012, 07:24:52 PM
This is a SPORTZ thread, people!
IT'S A STATZ THREAD, SHERSON.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-york-times-bully-knocks-stack-of-polls-from-na,30218/
Quote"Hey, Silverdork, I got a poll for you. It says there's a 90 percent chance that I'm going to beat the shit out of you, what do you think of that?"
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
I'm anticipating staying off Facebook on Wednesday in the event that Obama wins re-election for fear that the aggregate asshurt might 'splode my computer.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2012, 08:16:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
I'm anticipating staying off Facebook on Wednesday in the event that Obama wins re-election for fear that the aggregate asshurt might 'splode my computer.
I think I plan to enjoy the hell out of it either way.
If Obama wins the racism that the Internet brings us will be amazing. That and the cries of a rigged election, conspiracy theories and everything else.
If Romney wins you get the same conspiracy/rigged talk and also typical liberal whining PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
It's gonna be good.
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
In a very depressing, we're all fucked through the floor kind of way.
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
Aside from Herman Cain, not really.
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2012, 08:16:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
I'm anticipating staying off Facebook on Wednesday in the event that Obama wins re-election for fear that the aggregate asshurt might 'splode my computer.
There is no scenario that can play out that will not cause an avalanche of asshurt on Facebook that will make even you look like you've achieved a Zen-like state of calm.
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 10:11:17 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2012, 08:16:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
I'm anticipating staying off Facebook on Wednesday in the event that Obama wins re-election for fear that the aggregate asshurt might 'splode my computer.
There is no scenario that can play out that will not cause an avalanche of asshurt on Facebook that will make even you look like you've achieved a Zen-like state of calm.
Considering I'm friends with both you and Morph, I assume I can't lose either way.
Quote from: PenPho on November 05, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 10:11:17 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 05, 2012, 08:16:57 AM
Quote from: Fork on November 05, 2012, 07:58:32 AM
Has Nate Silver run the odds on somebody completely losing their shit in either a shopping mall or Government building Wednesday morning?
I'm anticipating staying off Facebook on Wednesday in the event that Obama wins re-election for fear that the aggregate asshurt might 'splode my computer.
There is no scenario that can play out that will not cause an avalanche of asshurt on Facebook that will make even you look like you've achieved a Zen-like state of calm.
Considering I'm friends with both you and Morph, I assume I can't lose either way.
THI
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
Aside from Herman Cain, not really.
Rick Perry would like a word with you, but he can't remember why.
Quote from: CT III on November 05, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
Aside from Herman Cain, not really.
Rick Perry would like a word with you, but he can't remember why.
Michelle Bachmann would like to speak with you in tongues. (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/?mobile=nc)
Quote from: CT III on November 05, 2012, 10:57:55 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 09:29:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 09:02:35 AM
PLUS at least 4 years of amazing jokes.
Let's not get too carried away now.
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
It has been pretty hilariously awesome. Don't you think?
Aside from Herman Cain, not really.
Rick Perry would like a word with you, but he can't remember why.
Yeah come on - plenty of fun. I've had many a laugh and will continue to have them.
I can't wait to see Paul Ryan declare himself AmeriPope.
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 11:37:46 AM
Also:
Quote from: Slaky on June 05, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 04, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
Bump.
My how times have changed.
Alright, I'm getting tired of you.
Now he's going to find the time you said "Thrill never gets old."
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 11:37:46 AM
Also:
Quote from: Slaky on June 05, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 04, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
Bump.
My how times have changed.
Alright, I'm getting tired of you.
Now he's going to find the time you said "Thrill never gets old."
Goddamn wizards.
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 01:05:30 PM
Quote from: Bort on November 05, 2012, 01:03:50 PM
Quote from: Slaky on November 05, 2012, 11:38:48 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 05, 2012, 11:37:46 AM
Also:
Quote from: Slaky on June 05, 2012, 10:08:05 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on June 04, 2012, 06:44:11 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 24, 2011, 09:45:08 PM
I can't wait for this next election. It's going to be so incredibly awesome.
Bump.
My how times have changed.
Alright, I'm getting tired of you.
Now he's going to find the time you said "Thrill never gets old."
Goddamn wizards.
I no rite?
(http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2011-06/353516540-23160815.jpg)
Credit where credit's due.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A7Ery-hCYAAykAw.jpg)
That's as good as it gets for accuracy.
Quote from: morpheus on November 06, 2012, 11:29:58 PM
Credit where credit's due.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A7Ery-hCYAAykAw.jpg)
That's as good as it gets for accuracy.
I hope Silver spends his morning calling pundits to tell them to kiss 100% of his ass.
http://xkcd.com/1131/
(http://i.imgur.com/BiOdc.png)
Here are your most accurate pollsters from this cycle:
Quote1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/the_most_accurate_polls.html
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 01:52:41 PM
Here are your most accurate pollsters from this cycle:
Quote1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/the_most_accurate_polls.html
Forgot one (http://unskewedpolls.com/).
Quote from: Fork on November 07, 2012, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: Gilgamesh on November 07, 2012, 01:52:41 PM
Here are your most accurate pollsters from this cycle:
Quote1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/07/the_most_accurate_polls.html
Forgot one (http://unskewedpolls.com/).
What an eye sore.
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Quote from: PANK! on November 15, 2012, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Reading through those comments is like going back ten years in the online baseball community. It's fucking horrible and makes me want to lie down in front of a train.
Quote from: Judy"It's the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."
See Nate....there you go again! Baseball is tradition. Baseball is not a game of numbers, much like football is.
Baseball is what is passed from grandfather to father to son....and on.
Baseball has never been a game of stats. Baseball has always been a game of heart and passion.
In short, Stats are meaningless in matters of the heart.
Quote from: Tonker on November 15, 2012, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 15, 2012, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Reading through those comments is like going back ten years in the online baseball community. It's fucking horrible and makes me want to lie down in front of a train.
Quote from: Judy"It's the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."
See Nate....there you go again! Baseball is tradition. Baseball is not a game of numbers, much like football is.
Baseball is what is passed from grandfather to father to son....and on.
Baseball has never been a game of stats. Baseball has always been a game of heart and passion.
In short, Stats are meaningless in matters of the heart.
Base Ball by Nicholas Sparks
Quote from: Slaky on November 15, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 15, 2012, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 15, 2012, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Reading through those comments is like going back ten years in the online baseball community. It's fucking horrible and makes me want to lie down in front of a train.
Quote from: Judy"It's the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."
See Nate....there you go again! Baseball is tradition. Baseball is not a game of numbers, much like football is.
Baseball is what is passed from grandfather to father to son....and on.
Baseball has never been a game of stats. Baseball has always been a game of heart and passion.
In short, Stats are meaningless in matters of the heart.
Base Ball by Nicholas Sparks
Nicholas Sparks must be Tony Campana's agent.
Quote from: Fork on November 15, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
Quote from: Slaky on November 15, 2012, 09:32:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on November 15, 2012, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: PANK! on November 15, 2012, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on November 14, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on November 14, 2012, 09:28:10 PM
Sticking to what he knows. (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/)
From the comments:
Quote from: MarkNate:
I love you, but stick to elections. While baseball is certainly built on a foundation of stats, not all stats are created equal. As you know, Cabrera did something not done in 45 years. He also carried his team to the playoffs in the process, something that no stat quite captures. If you want to make an argument that Trout was the better statistical player, fine. That does not necessarily equate to the MVP, however.
Heh.
We're through the looking glass, people.
Reading through those comments is like going back ten years in the online baseball community. It's fucking horrible and makes me want to lie down in front of a train.
Quote from: Judy"It's the traditionalists who are using statistics in a way that misses the forest for the trees."
See Nate....there you go again! Baseball is tradition. Baseball is not a game of numbers, much like football is.
Baseball is what is passed from grandfather to father to son....and on.
Baseball has never been a game of stats. Baseball has always been a game of heart and passion.
In short, Stats are meaningless in matters of the heart.
Base Ball by Nicholas Sparks
Nicholas Sparks must be Tony Campana's agent.
Must he?
Joe Scarstink: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84115.html)
QuotePolitics is a messy sport. And just as ball players who drink beer and eat fried chicken in dugouts across America can screw up the smartest sabermatrician's forecast, Nate Silver's formula is sure to let his fervent admirers down from time to time. But judging from what I saw of him this morning, Nate is a grounded guy who admits as much in his book. I was too tough on him and there's a 84.398264% chance I will be less dismissive of his good work in the future.
This (http://theclassical.org/articles/we-didnt-know-what-the-f-we-were-doing-fire-joe-morgan-on-fire-joe-morgan) oral history (http://theclassical.org/articles/the-innate-quality-to-win-fire-joe-morgan-on-fire-joe-morgan) of FJM pointed me in the direction of some old, awesome FJM pieces.
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/01/honestly-one-of-weirdest-things-i-have.html
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/best-ever.html
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/12/thats-what-friends-are-for.html
Quote from: R-V on December 19, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
This (http://theclassical.org/articles/we-didnt-know-what-the-f-we-were-doing-fire-joe-morgan-on-fire-joe-morgan) oral history (http://theclassical.org/articles/the-innate-quality-to-win-fire-joe-morgan-on-fire-joe-morgan) of FJM pointed me in the direction of some old, awesome FJM pieces.
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/01/honestly-one-of-weirdest-things-i-have.html
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2006/08/best-ever.html
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2007/12/thats-what-friends-are-for.html
QuotePetey "Garbageface" Krunkston
NERD ALERT! He's such a dork he won't reveal his identity because his dorky face is probably full of glasses and acne.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/29/the-cubs-front-office-brain-trust-grows-by-one-tom-tango/
Quote from: R-V on January 29, 2013, 10:23:08 AM
NERD ALERT! He's such a dork he won't reveal his identity because his dorky face is probably full of glasses and acne.
http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/01/29/the-cubs-front-office-brain-trust-grows-by-one-tom-tango/
He's a dorky JOB CREATOR (http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/article/psst...-wanna-work-for-the-cubs-and-with-me).
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I could also go for a TJ Brown-led discussion on how the Cubs can make up the 10.5-game gap between them and the Selig Card.
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well, he did have to talk to John Cusack's other sister once...
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well I do have a bet with the same trolling jackass who likes to blow up my Facebook timeline. He even gave me 5 games.
But aside from that, I quite enjoy that they're struggling to keep up with the Cubs--who aren't even trying to win right now. Yes, I'll admit that their failure still interests and delights me.
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well I do have a bet with the same trolling jackass who likes to blow up my Facebook timeline. He even gave me 5 games.
But aside from that, I quite enjoy that they're struggling to keep up with the Cubs--who aren't even trying to win right now. Yes, I'll admit that their failure still interests and delights me.
(http://www.1smartlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/unfriend.jpg)
Quote from: PenFoe on August 25, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well I do have a bet with the same trolling jackass who likes to blow up my Facebook timeline. He even gave me 5 games.
But aside from that, I quite enjoy that they're struggling to keep up with the Cubs--who aren't even trying to win right now. Yes, I'll admit that their failure still interests and delights me.
(http://www.1smartlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/unfriend.jpg)
Says the guy who's de-friended twice as many desipiots as I have.
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on August 25, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well I do have a bet with the same trolling jackass who likes to blow up my Facebook timeline. He even gave me 5 games.
But aside from that, I quite enjoy that they're struggling to keep up with the Cubs--who aren't even trying to win right now. Yes, I'll admit that their failure still interests and delights me.
(http://www.1smartlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/unfriend.jpg)
Says the guy who's de-friended twice as many desipiots as I have.
To be fair, I think it's actually three times.
But I wasn't some attention whore who made a big deal about it.
Quote from: PenFoe on August 25, 2014, 01:24:24 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on August 25, 2014, 12:37:15 PM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 12:32:00 PM
Quote from: Slaky on August 25, 2014, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 25, 2014, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on August 25, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
I know it's counter-productive but I want the Cubs to finish ahead of the Reds. I would like some obvious statistical ammunition to aim at the Buttpuddle mouthbreathers regarding the direction of both franchises. If you were privy to some of the things those people say to me, you might see my reasoning.
I feel the same way about the White Sox. Currently, the Cubs are only 1 game back.
I couldn't care less about the White Sox anymore. You must work with and/or provoke some interesting Sox fans during the day.
Well I do have a bet with the same trolling jackass who likes to blow up my Facebook timeline. He even gave me 5 games.
But aside from that, I quite enjoy that they're struggling to keep up with the Cubs--who aren't even trying to win right now. Yes, I'll admit that their failure still interests and delights me.
(http://www.1smartlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/unfriend.jpg)
Says the guy who's de-friended twice as many desipiots as I have.
To be fair, I think it's actually three times.
But I wasn't some attention whore who made a big deal about it.
I'll thank you for leaving Thrill out of this.
Quote from: Tonker on August 24, 2014, 04:06:03 AM
There are some huge, race-changing slices of luck going on at the moment:
NYY: RS 499 RA 536; W-L 66-61; XW-L 59-68 (+7)
TB: RS 511 RA 488; W-L 63-66; XW-L 67-62 (-4)
LAA: RS 596 RA 502; W-L 76-52; XW-L 74-54 (+2)
OAK: RS 615 RA 450; W-L 76-52; XW-L 82-46 (-6)
SEA: RS 511 RA 407; W-L 70-58; XW-L 77-51 (-7)
STL: RS 489 RA 491; W-L 70-58; XW-L 64-64 (+6)
PIT: RS 550 RA 542; W-L 67-62; XW-L 65-64 (-2)
CIN: RS 490 RA 486; W-L 62-68; XW-L 65-65 (-3)
... all of which leads me to conclude that fuck New York, fuck Anaheim, and most of all Fuck St. Louis.
Amazingly, rather than regressing, the situation has worsened (or improved, depending on your point of view) in the AL West. Oakland should, by rights, be at 94-61 and a game and a half up on Anaheim, and they're actually at ten and a half games down - a staggering twelve game (in case you couldn't do the sums) swing.
Also, the Tards have moved from six games ahead of where they should be, to eight games up. Jesus Christ. How the fuck - other than a pact with Satan - do you end up at a number of games over .500 (18) that is higher than your run differential for the season (12)? Fuck those cunts: I hope they get their arses felt in the NLDS.
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
Nope.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_season.shtml
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
In a hitters' ballpark no less.
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
Nope.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_season.shtml
That list can also just remind people what a fucking great pitcher Dave McNally was. And he was Balto's #3 behind Palmer and Cuellar.
Quote from: Fork on January 08, 2015, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
Nope.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_season.shtml
That list can also just remind people what a fucking great pitcher Dave McNally was. And he was Balto's #3 behind Palmer and Cuellar.
And can also show you that Clayton Kershaw has posted a WHIP under 1.00 for three of the last four seasons.
And it ballooned all the way to 1.023 the fourth year.
We're witnessing some
serious, historic greatness with Kershaw.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 08, 2015, 11:01:39 AM
Quote from: Fork on January 08, 2015, 10:58:14 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 10:30:29 AM
can any of you bastards who have a B-R subscription or whatever confirm whether anyone has ever posted a lower WHIP for a season (minimum 200 IP) than Pedro's 0.737 in 2000?
Also, Jesus Christ, Pedro Martinez posted a ZERO POINT SEVEN THREE SEVEN WHIP in the middle of the goddamn steroid era. What a monster.
Nope.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/whip_season.shtml
That list can also just remind people what a fucking great pitcher Dave McNally was. And he was Balto's #3 behind Palmer and Cuellar.
And can also show you that Clayton Kershaw has posted a WHIP under 1.00 for three of the last four seasons.
And it ballooned all the way to 1.023 the fourth year.
We're witnessing some serious, historic greatness with Kershaw.
Agreed, but I'd have to say Pedro's 1999-2002 are even more impressive considering the offensive era he was in. Holy balls. Amazing that only two guys other than Pedro have even done better .850 since fucking World War I.
So yeah, definitely making sure I enjoy Kershaw while I can, but man do I feel bad that I had no idea even while watching him just how insanely good Pedro was at his peak.
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
This has led me way down the rabbithole, after marveling at Pedro and then Maddux's 95 season I'm now just marveling at Walter Johnson. Deadball Era be damned, the man averaged 330+ IP from 1908-1919 and put up a 173 ERA+ during that time.
Stats. I love em.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Just because a guy isn't a huge, muscle-bound meat head doesn't mean he never took anything on the banned substances list for performance purposes. A guy like Maddux could have had periodic bouts with dead arm or back pain or whatever and gotten a little something for the pain that wasn't legal. And you can still name your dog after him if you want. It's really ok.
ALSO: can we change the thread title? I know that's odd coming from me. But I've changed. We've all changed.
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
Not to mention, nobody faced those loaded Yankee lineups more than he did.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 08, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Just because a guy isn't a huge, muscle-bound meat head doesn't mean he never took anything on the banned substances list for performance purposes. A guy like Maddux could have had periodic bouts with dead arm or back pain or whatever and gotten a little something for the pain that wasn't legal. And you can still name your dog after him if you want. It's really ok.
ALSO: can we change the thread title? I know that's odd coming from me. But I've changed. We've all changed.
To be fair to the 21 year old shithead who started this thread, "statfaggots" was a creation of BNCMike, and the entire thread existed to mock Him. But I am cool with this change.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 08, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Just because a guy isn't a huge, muscle-bound meat head doesn't mean he never took anything on the banned substances list for performance purposes. A guy like Maddux could have had periodic bouts with dead arm or back pain or whatever and gotten a little something for the pain that wasn't legal. And you can still name your dog after him if you want. It's really ok.
Yup. People keep marveling at Pedro/Maddux/Smoltz/etc. and their numbers during the steroid era, but pitchers can benefit from PEDs just as much (if not more) than hitters.
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 08, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Just because a guy isn't a huge, muscle-bound meat head doesn't mean he never took anything on the banned substances list for performance purposes. A guy like Maddux could have had periodic bouts with dead arm or back pain or whatever and gotten a little something for the pain that wasn't legal. And you can still name your dog after him if you want. It's really ok.
Yup. People keep marveling at Pedro/Maddux/Smoltz/etc. and their numbers during the steroid era, but pitchers can benefit from PEDs just as much (if not more) than hitters.
Yeah. To clarify, when I marvel at what a pitcher did during the steroid era I don't really mean "wow look what that pitcher did sans chemicals while facing those brutes." Entirely possible a guy like Pedro Martinez was juicing, but even if it's a level playing field between him and the guys he was facing, holy shit are those numbers still more impressive than numbers a non-roid pitcher posted against non-roid hitters in today's Deadball Era III.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 01:41:57 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 08, 2015, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 08, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 08, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:14:42 AM
Also Maddux's 1995 WHIP of .8108 is an amazing testament to the man's control given how he pitched to contact and wasn't a power pitcher like Kershaw or Martinez or Gibson.
And didn't exercise or take roids.
I don't mean this in a clickbait way or anything, but we have no idea if Maddux took steroids.
Just because a guy isn't a huge, muscle-bound meat head doesn't mean he never took anything on the banned substances list for performance purposes. A guy like Maddux could have had periodic bouts with dead arm or back pain or whatever and gotten a little something for the pain that wasn't legal. And you can still name your dog after him if you want. It's really ok.
ALSO: can we change the thread title? I know that's odd coming from me. But I've changed. We've all changed.
To be fair to the 21 year old shithead who started this thread, "statfaggots" was a creation of BNCMike, and the entire thread existed to mock Him. But I am cool with this change.
I think you need to change the header on the original post
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
This has led me way down the rabbithole, after marveling at Pedro and then Maddux's 95 season I'm now just marveling at Walter Johnson. Deadball Era be damned, the man averaged 330+ IP from 1908-1919 and put up a 173 ERA+ during that time.
Stats. I love em.
Your Walter Johnson mention has sent me deep down the rabbithole as well. Jeebus, Cy Young averaged 350 innings a season over a 21 year career.
Which reminds me, I need to read "Crazy '08" again, and highly recommend the book to anyone with an interest in old timey baseball things.
Quote from: CT III on January 08, 2015, 01:48:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
This has led me way down the rabbithole, after marveling at Pedro and then Maddux's 95 season I'm now just marveling at Walter Johnson. Deadball Era be damned, the man averaged 330+ IP from 1908-1919 and put up a 173 ERA+ during that time.
Stats. I love em.
Your Walter Johnson mention has sent me deep down the rabbithole as well. Jeebus, Cy Young averaged 350 innings a season over a 21 year career.
Which reminds me, I need to read "Crazy '08" again, and highly recommend the book to anyone with an interest in old timey baseball things.
I always hear people reject those incredible IP feats because "pitchers didn't throw as hard back then" but the thing is I guarantee you that sonofabitch threw as hard as he was capable of throwing. I can probably manage a 40 MPH fastball but if you asked me to throw 120+ of them for 350 innings a year my shoulder would still fall off and I would cry a lot. That's an impressive feat no matter what he has clockin'.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 08, 2015, 01:48:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
This has led me way down the rabbithole, after marveling at Pedro and then Maddux's 95 season I'm now just marveling at Walter Johnson. Deadball Era be damned, the man averaged 330+ IP from 1908-1919 and put up a 173 ERA+ during that time.
Stats. I love em.
Your Walter Johnson mention has sent me deep down the rabbithole as well. Jeebus, Cy Young averaged 350 innings a season over a 21 year career.
Which reminds me, I need to read "Crazy '08" again, and highly recommend the book to anyone with an interest in old timey baseball things.
I always hear people reject those incredible IP feats because "pitchers didn't throw as hard back then" but the thing is I guarantee you that sonofabitch threw as hard as he was capable of throwing. I can probably manage a 40 MPH fastball but if you asked me to throw 120+ of them for 350 innings a year my shoulder would still fall off and I would cry a lot. That's an impressive feat no matter what he has clockin'.
I'd formally like to make this request.
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 01:55:20 PM
Quote from: CT III on January 08, 2015, 01:48:32 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 08, 2015, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 08, 2015, 11:27:22 AM
Pedro also pitched in the American League, with 9 professional hitters in the lineup on a daily basis.
This has led me way down the rabbithole, after marveling at Pedro and then Maddux's 95 season I'm now just marveling at Walter Johnson. Deadball Era be damned, the man averaged 330+ IP from 1908-1919 and put up a 173 ERA+ during that time.
Stats. I love em.
Your Walter Johnson mention has sent me deep down the rabbithole as well. Jeebus, Cy Young averaged 350 innings a season over a 21 year career.
Which reminds me, I need to read "Crazy '08" again, and highly recommend the book to anyone with an interest in old timey baseball things.
I always hear people reject those incredible IP feats because "pitchers didn't throw as hard back then" but the thing is I guarantee you that sonofabitch threw as hard as he was capable of throwing. I can probably manage a 40 MPH fastball but if you asked me to throw 120+ of them for 350 innings a year my shoulder would still fall off and I would cry a lot. That's an impressive feat no matter what he has clockin'.
There's enough film of guys like Johnson, Young and Mathewson - holy shit, he looked like Seaver - to draw context. Hitters were swinging (esp. with Johnson) very late. Sure, some of it had to do with the idea that a heavier bat would give you better contact, as the notion of bat head speed through the hitting zone didn't come until the 40s.
But these guys could fucking bring it. Considering they were bringing it in ballparks without lights, and full of shadows, it's a miracle there was only one in-game fatality.
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
VORP went out with high-button shoes.
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
Chuck killed VORP when he invented TORP.
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
I see that you changed the thread title. A homage to BadNewsMike isn't worth it?
Quote from: Yeti on April 10, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
I see that you changed the thread title. A homage to BadNewsMike isn't worth it?
Nowadays I think he's best forgotten. As is 21 year old SKO.
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 10, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
I see that you changed the thread title. A homage to BadNewsMike isn't worth it?
Nowadays I think he's best forgotten. As is 21 year old SKO.
To answer your question, VORP does still exist, but it looks like BP has shifted to "BWARP" as their primary player valuation (presumably to go along with how everyone else is using wins as their preferred metric). Then again, their glossary of stats hasn't been updated since 2011, so I'm not sure if it's accurate.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819201
Quote from: Eli on April 10, 2015, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: Yeti on April 10, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 10, 2015, 09:35:06 AM
question that came up from re-reading the Milton thread and seeing the popular Adam Dunn nickname "VORP Donkey" that I hope maybe ChuckD or someone can answer....
Does anyone still use VORP or has it been completely supplanted by WAR? What's the difference between the two? I see WAR used constantly, VORP almost never these days.
I see that you changed the thread title. A homage to BadNewsMike isn't worth it?
Nowadays I think he's best forgotten. As is 21 year old SKO.
To answer your question, VORP does still exist, but it looks like BP has shifted to "BWARP" as their primary player valuation (presumably to go along with how everyone else is using wins as their preferred metric). Then again, their glossary of stats hasn't been updated since 2011, so I'm not sure if it's accurate.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1819201
Also looks like VORP was just an offensive stat only, now that I've looked into it, and WAR factors in defense and whatnot, which would make sense why VORPDonkey was the VORPDonkey and WAR noted him as a mostly average to below average player. Understandable why VORP is obsolete.
I'm sure a lot of you have seen this - it came out last week at some point, but I couldn't help but love the new "Deserved Runs Average" stat that Harry Pavlidis and the folks at Baseball Prospectus (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=26195) just rolled out.
Just one step closer to the Deserved Wins stat we've been coveting.
Has MLB made Statcast info publicly available yet, or are there plans to soon? I'm sure ChuckD and his fellow cyborgs could come up with all sorts of cool shit based on that datase.
Quote from: R-V on May 05, 2015, 11:24:54 AM
Has MLB made Statcast info publicly available yet, or are there plans to soon? I'm sure ChuckD and his fellow cyborgs could come up with all sorts of cool shit based on that datase.
Not that I'm aware of.
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
Even weirder, by the way - 292 is what Javy weighs when he wakes up in the morning.
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
IT MEANS HE GET RESULTS, YOU STUPID CHIEF
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 25, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
He is currently on pace to best Hack Wilson's 1930 all-time MLB record of 191 RBI with 195 (he's also on pace to finish with one more homer than Hack had, 57 to 56).
The only logical conclusion is
this is 100% what is going to happen
Quote from: SKO on April 25, 2018, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 25, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
He is currently on pace to best Hack Wilson's 1930 all-time MLB record of 191 RBI with 195 (he's also on pace to finish with one more homer than Hack had, 57 to 56).
The only logical conclusion is this is 100% what is going to happen
Look at Hack's age 26-32 seasons.
Year PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1926-1932 4257 3635 729 1160 222 49 213 892 36 514 546 .319 .406 .583 .989 153
Average 608 519 104 166 32 7 30 127 5 73 78 303
per 162 games 699 597 120 191 37 9 35 147 6 85 90 348
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 26, 2018, 10:02:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 25, 2018, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 25, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
He is currently on pace to best Hack Wilson's 1930 all-time MLB record of 191 RBI with 195 (he's also on pace to finish with one more homer than Hack had, 57 to 56).
The only logical conclusion is this is 100% what is going to happen
Look at Hack's age 26-32 seasons.
Year PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1926-1932 4257 3635 729 1160 222 49 213 892 36 514 546 .319 .406 .583 .989 153
Average 608 519 104 166 32 7 30 127 5 73 78 303
per 162 games 699 597 120 191 37 9 35 147 6 85 90 348
Thanks for the tab delimited text file. It's going to help me with my mail merge.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 26, 2018, 10:02:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 25, 2018, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 25, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
He is currently on pace to best Hack Wilson's 1930 all-time MLB record of 191 RBI with 195 (he's also on pace to finish with one more homer than Hack had, 57 to 56).
The only logical conclusion is this is 100% what is going to happen
Look at Hack's age 26-32 seasons.
Year PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1926-1932 4257 3635 729 1160 222 49 213 892 36 514 546 .319 .406 .583 .989 153
Average 608 519 104 166 32 7 30 127 5 73 78 303
per 162 games 699 597 120 191 37 9 35 147 6 85 90 348
Great presentation of numbers. Good thing you're not in banking or anything.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on April 26, 2018, 11:10:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 26, 2018, 10:02:35 AM
Quote from: SKO on April 25, 2018, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on April 25, 2018, 02:00:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:19:28 PM
Quote from: Yeti on April 25, 2018, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: Tonker on April 25, 2018, 02:26:38 AM
I was just browsing, with my hand down my shorts, through Cubs stats on Fangraphs, when I noticed that BMIaez has a BABIP of just .292. Considering that he currently leads the team in WAR ahead of give guys who all have a BABIP of over .350, that's pretty remarkable.
However, I then notice that not only is Javy's BABIP .292, but his BA is also .292. I tried to think about what exactly that means, but it made my brain hurt, so... paging statnherds?
BA is .299 and BABIP is .308. Internet is slow in Australia
Speaking of stats (cue Yeti), he's got 24 RBI which is leading the NL. That's kinda fun. 24 before April is over decent.
With what, 4 missed games due to weather?
He is currently on pace to best Hack Wilson's 1930 all-time MLB record of 191 RBI with 195 (he's also on pace to finish with one more homer than Hack had, 57 to 56).
The only logical conclusion is this is 100% what is going to happen
Look at Hack's age 26-32 seasons.
Year PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1926-1932 4257 3635 729 1160 222 49 213 892 36 514 546 .319 .406 .583 .989 153
Average 608 519 104 166 32 7 30 127 5 73 78 303
per 162 games 699 597 120 191 37 9 35 147 6 85 90 348
Great presentation of numbers. Good thing you're not in banking or anything.
It'd be so much easier if this Geocities-level webzone would allow you to upload images.
Okay, here's a thing: those Stathead turds at Fangraphs have Washington as favourites to win the NL East:
(https://i.imgur.com/7CDU05s.jpg)
Not just favourites, in fact, but relatively firm favourites: they're almost half as likely again to win the division as the Braves are. Okay, so the strength of the remaining schedule for the Nats is advantageous, but only by a couple of wins, and as it stands they're seven games behind the Braves with a run differential of +24 against Atlanta's +81. I could understand predicting it being a closer-run thing than it is now. I can't understand how you make Washington firm favourites here - Atlanta has been as good as anybody in the NL* throughout the first half, but somehow they're going to play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way whilst the Nats, a .500 club for 84 games, go on an eighty-game win bender.
The fuck?
*Except the Cubs, natch.
Quote from: Tonker on July 04, 2018, 03:02:25 AM
Okay, here's a thing: those Stathead turds at Fangraphs have Washington as favourites to win the NL East:
(https://i.imgur.com/7CDU05s.jpg)
Not just favourites, in fact, but relatively firm favourites: they're almost half as likely again to win the division as the Braves are. Okay, so the strength of the remaining schedule for the Nats is advantageous, but only by a couple of wins, and as it stands they're seven games behind the Braves with a run differential of +24 against Atlanta's +81. I could understand predicting it being a closer-run thing than it is now. I can't understand how you make Washington firm favourites here - Atlanta has been as good as anybody in the NL* throughout the first half, but somehow they're going to play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way whilst the Nats, a .500 club for 84 games, go on an eighty-game win bender.
The fuck?
*Except the Cubs, natch.
Without diving into it too deep, I'm going to say it's based on individual player projections the rest of the way through. Sure, the Nationals are playing like an 81 win team, but player projections dictate that they're not an 81 win club. I'm sure the Cubs were favored to win the division last year when they were .500 around this time
Quote from: Yeti on July 04, 2018, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Tonker on July 04, 2018, 03:02:25 AM
Okay, here's a thing: those Stathead turds at Fangraphs have Washington as favourites to win the NL East:
(https://i.imgur.com/7CDU05s.jpg)
Not just favourites, in fact, but relatively firm favourites: they're almost half as likely again to win the division as the Braves are. Okay, so the strength of the remaining schedule for the Nats is advantageous, but only by a couple of wins, and as it stands they're seven games behind the Braves with a run differential of +24 against Atlanta's +81. I could understand predicting it being a closer-run thing than it is now. I can't understand how you make Washington firm favourites here - Atlanta has been as good as anybody in the NL* throughout the first half, but somehow they're going to play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way whilst the Nats, a .500 club for 84 games, go on an eighty-game win bender.
The fuck?
*Except the Cubs, natch.
Without diving into it too deep, I'm going to say it's based on individual player projections the rest of the way through. Sure, the Nationals are playing like an 81 win team, but player projections dictate that they're not an 81 win club. I'm sure the Cubs were favored to win the division last year when they were .500 around this time
From what I can tell the Fangraphs projections mostly just take whatever you were projected to do before the season, winning % wise, and project that you do that the rest of the season and then add that to the wins you already banked. So if before the year they expected the Nats to win 95 games (.586) and the Braves to win 75 (.462) even if they haven't played like that to this point, going forward the system still thinks at some point they'll play like the team they were supposed to be and so will the Braves, which in the Braves case would be a massive collapse. Sometimes this is correct, like last year as Yeti says they did, in fact, confidently predict the Cubs would win the division and the Brewers would crash even when the Cubs were sucking early, but other times it's really just the data refusing to accept certain breakouts, etc.
Problem is there's not really any reason to believe the Braves aren't real, for the most part. They're the 2015 Cubs, a collection of young studly guys like Albies and Acuna, their young pitchers are finally playing well after a few years of growing pains, they haven't significantly outperformed their Pythagorean record or whatever. The system may have trouble accepting that they arrived faster than predicted but they're here to stay. I think FG is wrong here and the Nats are in real trouble.
DPD but also the Fangraphs projections keep expecting the Brewers to eventually play like the 78 win team the system thought they were at the beginning of the year and while I do think that's more likely to happen than Atlanta falling to earth bc the Brewers are getting stupidly lucky in one run games it would be nice if they'd actually get around to sucking. Stupid bastards.
Quote from: SKO on July 05, 2018, 03:07:24 PM
DPD but also the Fangraphs projections keep expecting the Brewers to eventually play like the 78 win team the system thought they were at the beginning of the year and while I do think that's more likely to happen than Atlanta falling to earth bc the Brewers are getting stupidly lucky in one run games it would be nice if they'd actually get around to sucking. Stupid bastards.
You need to become more of a sadist. The longer the Brewers stay competitive this year, the harder it's going to be on their fans when the inevitable collapse occurs.
Quote from: SKO on July 05, 2018, 03:04:58 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 04, 2018, 03:41:18 PM
Quote from: Tonker on July 04, 2018, 03:02:25 AM
Okay, here's a thing: those Stathead turds at Fangraphs have Washington as favourites to win the NL East:
(https://i.imgur.com/7CDU05s.jpg)
Not just favourites, in fact, but relatively firm favourites: they're almost half as likely again to win the division as the Braves are. Okay, so the strength of the remaining schedule for the Nats is advantageous, but only by a couple of wins, and as it stands they're seven games behind the Braves with a run differential of +24 against Atlanta's +81. I could understand predicting it being a closer-run thing than it is now. I can't understand how you make Washington firm favourites here - Atlanta has been as good as anybody in the NL* throughout the first half, but somehow they're going to play sub-.500 ball the rest of the way whilst the Nats, a .500 club for 84 games, go on an eighty-game win bender.
The fuck?
*Except the Cubs, natch.
Without diving into it too deep, I'm going to say it's based on individual player projections the rest of the way through. Sure, the Nationals are playing like an 81 win team, but player projections dictate that they're not an 81 win club. I'm sure the Cubs were favored to win the division last year when they were .500 around this time
From what I can tell the Fangraphs projections mostly just take whatever you were projected to do before the season, winning % wise, and project that you do that the rest of the season and then add that to the wins you already banked. So if before the year they expected the Nats to win 95 games (.586) and the Braves to win 75 (.462) even if they haven't played like that to this point, going forward the system still thinks at some point they'll play like the team they were supposed to be and so will the Braves, which in the Braves case would be a massive collapse. Sometimes this is correct, like last year as Yeti says they did, in fact, confidently predict the Cubs would win the division and the Brewers would crash even when the Cubs were sucking early, but other times it's really just the data refusing to accept certain breakouts, etc.
Problem is there's not really any reason to believe the Braves aren't real, for the most part. They're the 2015 Cubs, a collection of young studly guys like Albies and Acuna, their young pitchers are finally playing well after a few years of growing pains, they haven't significantly outperformed their Pythagorean record or whatever. The system may have trouble accepting that they arrived faster than predicted but they're here to stay. I think FG is wrong here and the Nats are in real trouble.
Fangraphs? Show me some fucking confidence intervals, statmonkey.