Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 111 of 111

Thread: Mike Trout on pace for greatest season in MLB history

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTwinAndreBen View Post
    Also, stop saying "read the linked studies!!1!" like they are scientific studies done by real scientists or even mathematicians. These are just made up blog boy exercises.

    Their hope is that they make up a new made up stat that everyone likes and they get to move out of their aunt's basement.
    Tango is currently the Senior Database Architect of Stats for MLB Advanced Media.[2]

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTwinAndreBen View Post
    This guy lives in Iowa and didn't go to college.
    He works for the Astros.

  3. #103
    Great contributions from TAB. Pay no attention to these published authors and managers of research and development for mlb teams. RJ know what he is talking about.

  4. #104
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    58,236
    Denying outliers have statistical value is ludicrous. More accurately, you are saying, "If it doesn't prove my point, I will deny it has value."

  5. #105
    Gold Jerry Gold!!!!

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    Tango is currently the Senior Database Architect of Stats for MLB Advanced Media.[2]
    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    He works for the Astros.
    Neither of these things refutes the fact that he didn't go to college, or that in general, most of these advanced metrics 'experts' are unsmart people with little formal education. That's fine, but just slow your roll when quoting them like they are gospel. They are just schmucks who like numbers and baseball and who couldn't find gainful employment elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by MHBDemon View Post
    Great contributions from TAB. Pay no attention to these published authors and managers of research and development for mlb teams. RJ know what he is talking about.
    I made a Squarespace site once. Does that make me a 'published author'? Also, Wyers is just an analyst, not a manager. Four other people have his exact same position. Half of the sales and marketing department and probably a few on the grounds crew probably have better degrees.

    http://houston.astros.mlb.com/team/f...e.jsp?c_id=hou

    Look, I don't agree with RJ, but calm the eff down with your sactimoniousness that this stuff is irrefutable science. It's just neckbeards who like numbers. Which is fine, because its just baseball, the third most popular sport.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTwinAndreBen View Post
    Neither of these things refutes the fact that he didn't go to college, or that in general, most of these advanced metrics 'experts' are unsmart people with little formal education. That's fine, but just slow your roll when quoting them like they are gospel. They are just schmucks who like numbers and baseball and who couldn't find gainful employment elsewhere.



    I made a Squarespace site once. Does that make me a 'published author'? Also, Wyers is just an analyst, not a manager. Four other people have his exact same position. Half of the sales and marketing department and probably a few on the grounds crew probably have better degrees.

    http://houston.astros.mlb.com/team/f...e.jsp?c_id=hou

    Look, I don't agree with RJ, but calm the eff down with your sactimoniousness that this stuff is irrefutable science. It's just neckbeards who like numbers. Which is fine, because its just baseball, the third most popular sport.
    Cool man. I couldn't find Tango's educational background, but his coauthors have multiple degrees. I don't give a fuck about Wyers, I was just at the pool with my family and found that he had done a similar study to Tango's.

    Unlike you, I think people can be smart without having a formal education.

    It's not that I think the science is irrefutable. I think that it is science. The studies provide a "before" data set (players that performed well over a number of PAs) and an after data set (how those same players performed after their period of relative dominance). The results were that the former data set doesn't predict the latter.

    RJs is just presenting bulk data (without a before and after analysis) of players that did well against a pitcher over their career, with a selection bias problem, and claiming it supports a hypothesis that it does not support.

    I'm not saying "read the studies!!!!" because I think they are gospel. I'm saying it because I know RJ hasn't read them, or at least tried to understand them.

  8. #108
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    58,236
    RE: Bulk data -it proves the premise. I know you hate that, but it does. I've shown it from both sides and events over a 40 year period. Of course, that's not good enough for you. Some players don't regress to their mean in certain situations over long careers. This absolutely true and can't be refuted. This is irrelevant to you. You'll come up with some excuse or bloviate.

    If a stat geek says something is true, you believe it as gospel regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    As TAB says, you are sanctimonious and it's not just about baseball. You act in the same fashion about every subject.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    RE: Bulk data -it proves the premise. I know you hate that, but it does. I've shown it from both sides and events over a 40 year period. Of course, that's not good enough for you. Some players don't regress to their mean in certain situations over long careers. This absolutely true and can't be refuted. This is irrelevant to you. You'll come up with some excuse or bloviate.

    If a stat geek says something is true, you believe it as gospel regardless of evidence to the contrary.

    As TAB says, you are sanctimonious and it's not just about baseball. You act in the same fashion about every subject.
    You haven't proven anything except that some players did well against certain pitchers over the course of their career. This is not the same thing as proving that hitter vs. pitcher data has predictive value.

  10. #110
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    58,236
    That's the most ridiculous statement ever unless you can prove that the bulk of their success happened at the beginning or the end of their career rather than on a consistent basis. Being consistent at those levels is the definition of predictive.

    You simply can't admit that you are definitively wrong. And you are.

  11. #111
    TAB's disdain for the non-elite is tireless

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •