Who are the 8 retards...

[syhuang]

I never said your numbers were worthless. I never "threw them away". I never said they could not be used to compare players. I never said that Ripken was definitely better than Vaughn but I do say the point can be argued. It appears that to you, a number is a number and if something can't be measured with a number, it does not exist.

 

What I do say is that you cannot rely entirely on any set of numbers to rank players. You can't set up a database that ranks all the players from 1-99,000. Why, because you simply cannot measure all the variables. You throw out things that cannot be measured with a number. You've done it in this thread.

Ok, then when you asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", what method did you use to compare players in different era? No method at all?? If you think players can be compared, how?

 

You can be picky on the sabermetrics methods, however, these method are widely acceptted in baseball analysis, either you like it or not. Now, you don't like these methods but can not provide any better ways. You just simply asked a dummy question and wasted people's time.

 

I cannot prove with a number that Pudge's trip to the mounds or his talks after games or his set up on each pitch in each game helps a young staff through a 162 game season. Maybe if he went to the mound after every time Verlander threw a bad pitch and kicked him in the balls it would be a better method. Who's to say. It can't be proven. That must mean it is unimportant.

No one says it is unimportant or unexisted. It is just that the impact is not significant enough to show up on pitchers' numbers. The key word here: significant.

[OGTEleven]

Ok, then when you asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", what method did you use to compare players in different era? No method at all?? If you think players can be compared, how?

 

You can be picky on the sabermetrics methods, however, these method are widely acceptted in baseball analysis, either you like it or not. Now, you don't like these methods but can not provide any better ways. You just simply asked a dummy question and wasted people's time.

No one says it is unimportant. It is just that the impact is not significant enough to show on pitchers' performance.

Having a great catcher is not important enough that it shows up on a pitchers performance? Do you actually believe that? You cannot create an alternate universe in which I was the Tiger's catcher this year but I can assure you that the results would have been different. And they would have manifested themselves in ERA's, wins and losses.

 

I never once denigrated sabermetrics or any of the other methods. I don't care about them, but that doesn't mean I think they are without merit.

 

I do know that I saw the game of baseball change to a degree based on the offensive attributes of Cal Ripken. Personally, I think that has to count for something. How much it counts is up for debate. You say it counts zero and that is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, saying your opinion is a fact does not make it a fact. My "You can't" statement may have been a bit strong or brash but you have trumped me there.

 

Similarly, I have heard anecdotes that pitching mounds were lowered based on the dominance of Bob Gibson. For me that would likely bump him up a few spots in some ranking of stats. I doubt it would be pulled into the mathematical equation they used. The height of the mound yes, but the fact he was the cause? How would they measure that? Would you think it was important when deciding where you think Gibson stacks up?

 

I have to admit that your level of loyalty to these stats is perplexing. You must like baseball to some extent or else it is unlikely you would have ever heard of the existence of the statistical systems or developed an interest. But if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, you would never need to have seen a game of baseball to determine the top 100 players of all time in order and there could never be any debate. If it were that cut and dried, why would you like baseball to begin with?

[syhuang]

Having a great catcher is not important enough that it shows up on a pitchers performance? Do you actually believe that? You cannot create an alternate universe in which I was the Tiger's catcher this year but I can assure you that the results would have been different. And they would have manifested themselves in ERA's, wins and losses.

Didn't I just tell you the key word is "significant"? No one said it's not important, it is about the degree of importance. For example, better control or higher striking rate may help pitchers more than an experience catcher talking to them on the mound. Of course, what caused better control or higher striking rate can be analyzed, maybe catcher, maybe pitching coach, or maybe the pitcher becomes more mature.

 

Like I said, it is not about people believe it or not. It's about scientific proof. Many people believe one thing doesn't make it correct when there's no proof. Not long time ago, most people believed earth is flat and is the center of universe.

 

Face your own question "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't" and how do you compare players in different era? If you wanted to discuss sabermetrics methods, we can do it later. First thing first, what is you comparison method when you made the statement? No method?? just your feeling !?!?

 

I never once denigrated sabermetrics or any of the other methods. I don't care about them, but that doesn't mean I think they are without merit.

 

I do know that I saw the game of baseball change to a degree based on the offensive attributes of Cal Ripken. Personally, I think that has to count for something. How much it counts is up for debate. You say it counts zero and that is your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, saying your opinion is a fact does not make it a fact. My "You can't" statement may have been a bit strong or brash but you have trumped me there.

 

Similarly, I have heard anecdotes that pitching mounds were lowered based on the dominance of Bob Gibson. For me that would likely bump him up a few spots in some ranking of stats. I doubt it would be pulled into the mathematical equation they used. The height of the mound yes, but the fact he was the cause? How would they measure that? Would you think it was important when deciding where you think Gibson stacks up?

Again, you continue to ignore the part you aren't able to respond and keep talking something else which has nothing to do with these players' offense. You confuse ranking players to ranking players' offensive abilities (or pitching/defensive abilities), they are different.

 

The remaining of my previous post you ignored is

----------------------------------------------

Ok, then when you asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", what method did you use to compare players in different era? No method at all?? If you think players can be compared, how?

 

You can be picky on the sabermetrics methods, however, these method are widely acceptted in baseball analysis, either you like it or not. Now, you don't like these methods but can not provide any better ways. You just simply asked a dummy question and wasted people's time.

----------------------------------------------

Don't dodge the questions.......again......

 

I have to admit that your level of loyalty to these stats is perplexing. You must like baseball to some extent or else it is unlikely you would have ever heard of the existence of the statistical systems or developed an interest. But if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, you would never need to have seen a game of baseball to determine the top 100 players of all time in order and there could never be any debate. If it were that cut and dried, why would you like baseball to begin with?

No, people can watch baseball and study sabermetrics. One doesn't contradict the other. Studying baseball history and watching old films can help to adjust players' ranking. However, speaking of "offense" only, like in your question "offensive shortshop", it can be ranked, especially on this case. Ripken's and Vaughan's adjusted offensive numbers are not even close that some insignificant factors can overcome the difference.

 

Would you ask me to consider some insignificant factors when I tell you that Jeter is a better offensive shortstop than Hanley Ramirez this year based on VORP or win shares? (Note: I'm not saying the difference between Ripken and Vaughan is like Jeter and H.Ramirez, this is just an example to show you the idea.) If you think the difference between Jeter and H.Ramirez is big enough that the insiginificant factors won't affect the result, then try to look at Ripken's and Vaughan's offensive numbers and corresponding league averages in their times.

 

You may still think these relative insignificant factors should be included, however, you never mentioned what method you used while making your original statement or what factors you want to add to the current method when comparing the offensive abilities of two shortstops.

[OGTEleven]

----------------------------------------------

You never mentioned what method you used while making your original statement or what factors you want to add to the current method when comparing the offensive abilities of two shortstops.

I personally saw the impact Ripken had on the game. That impact is not (completely) measured in any of your methods but is directly related to offense. Teams now look for shortstops in the "Ripken mode". That is primarily based on offense. How do you measure that? How can one deny it should be counted among his offensive traits?

 

I did look at (and know) some statistics when making my assertion. I did not write a book or get a phD. Sorry. With that said, some significant factors are difficult or impossible to measure.

 

The rule change based on Gibson is very similar.

 

I'm sure Wee Willie Keeler stacks up quite well with your methods, but I'm also sure he got no bonus points for being so good at bunting that baseball had to change the rules.

 

Regarding Pudge, I'm not sure how something can be important but not significant, but I'm not sure I want to learn.

 

I have watched more than enough baseball to know that not everything offensive, defensive or otherwise is measured even if a book says it is. We've probably both have enough of this. I'm sure I have at this point.

[syhuang]

I personally saw the impact Ripken had on the game. That impact is not (completely) measured in any of your methods but is directly related to offense. Teams now look for shortstops in the "Ripken mode". That is primarily based on offense. How do you measure that? How can one deny it should be counted among his offensive traits?

 

I did look at (and know) some statistics when making my assertion. I did not write a book or get a phD. Sorry. With that said, some significant factors are difficult or impossible to measure.

 

The rule change based on Gibson is very similar.

 

I'm sure Wee Willie Keeler stacks up quite well with your methods, but I'm also sure he got no bonus points for being so good at bunting that baseball had to change the rules.

 

Regarding Pudge, I'm not sure how something can be important but not significant, but I'm not sure I want to learn.

 

I have watched more than enough baseball to know that not everything offensive, defensive or otherwise is measured even if a book says it is. We've probably both have enough of this. I'm sure I have at this point.

Again, you confuse ranking players to ranking players' offensive abilities. In your original question, you explicitly specified "offensive".

 

Then, you dodge my questions regarding how you made your statement the third time:

-----------------------------------------------------

Ok, then when you asked "Name 2 better offensive shortstops that preceded Ripken. You can't", what method did you use to compare players in different era? No method at all?? If you think players can be compared, how?

 

You can be picky on the sabermetrics methods, however, these method are widely acceptted in baseball analysis, either you like it or not. Now, you don't like these methods but can not provide any better ways. You just simply asked a dummy question and wasted people's time.

-----------------------------------------------------

 

If you simply made the statement based on your feeling and couldn't think of a better way to compare players, just say it.

 

Last, Ripken's and Vaughan's adjusted offensive numbers are not even close that some insignificant factors can overcome the difference. See my example in last post and check their stats and league averages in their times.