Interview thread embarassing?

[Michael]

I am sarcastic by nature, and I do not take many things seriously. I am sure I have ruffled a few feathers from time to time, but that is me. If you were hurt or offended, that was not my intenition, but if you were, maybe you need to take a look at yoursef, because if something an faceless person on an internet forum said really threw you for a loop, you may have other problems. They are only words folks, you choose if they hurt you or if they don't. I am who I am, and can not change it. I will keep posting here unless I am asked to leave, but why would you guys do that?

We haven't asked anyone in this thread to leave and nothing in this thread was directed towards you.


EDIT - I would like to reiterate the posts in question were deleted.

[jim]

I am sarcastic by nature, and I do not take many things seriously. I am sure I have ruffled a few feathers from time to time, but that is me. If you were hurt or offended, that was not my intenition, but if you were, maybe you need to take a look at yoursef, because if something an faceless person on an internet forum said really threw you for a loop, you may have other problems. They are only words folks, you choose if they hurt you or if they don't. I am who I am, and can not change it. I will keep posting here unless I am asked to leave, but why would you guys do that?

The baseball forum has become more of a stats forum. Sorry folks, but baseball is more art than science, IMO, and VORP to me is the sound you make when you are hung over.

Take a look at page one of BT and take a look at the threads that are more stat based. It's the minority. The problem is it seems, with some, is one stats based thread is one too many.

Most of the threads have a lot of stats in them, stats I have never even heard of. But if that is what people want to put in their posts, that is fine. I love the game for the play on the field, and the competition.

wart, I'm not trying to be picky but when you say "most" I really think you mean "a few". Without reading every post, I'm going to say that the only ones that are stat based are:

Miles has a higher OPS than...
Miles
Money in baseball (more finance really, no baseball stats)
How to use your best reliever
Fair runs better than ERA
Cards get Maroth.

I might be off by one or two, but that's 6 threads out of 40 that have alot of stats in them (not all are stat based). That's not most, that's a definite minority.

I personally think if stats are really your thing, GRB is probably not the best choice. There are many other sites that are way more stat oriented than GRB.

But you can't hardly have a baseball talk without stats. And as soon as someone tells me you can, it's not about the numbers, two seconds later they rattle off a batting average or ERA.

Just my opinion.

[Jocephus]

But you can't hardly have a baseball talk without stats. And as soon as someone tells me you can, it's not about the numbers, two seconds later they rattle off a batting average or ERA.

Just my opinion.

with all the talk of grb being "too staty"...it got me thinking...which came first? "the naked eye or the stats"...if you will...

people who say they "dont like" stats (dont use them as much) invariably use the main ones anyways (avg/hrs/rbi for hitters, etc / era, w/l, strikeouts, etc for pitchers) along with what they "see"...

the stat people look at the numbers to gauge if what they "see" is really what is being "done"

since being collected, stats are basically print versions of "the naked eye", but more precise ( i think)
if stats weren't being collected, "the naked eye" is all the "stats" we would have to go on...

but what kind of game would baseball be even if not for the simplest of statistics? well itd still be the same game, but probably looked at a lot differently...


ya know what...i thought i had this really deep theorhetical question/idea when i was writing this...but i dont...haha

[stretch]

But you can't hardly have a baseball talk without stats. And as soon as someone tells me you can, it's not about the numbers, two seconds later they rattle off a batting average or ERA.

You are too smart to post something like this.

You know very well that people aren't talking about those when they talk about "stats" in this instance.

Those are basic stats that take no leaps into the arcane world of VORP, WARP, Eqa, UZR, etc, etc, etc.

[Arthur Dent]

Let me hazard a guess. I think people don't like advanced stats because they feel that their use constitutes an exclusionary elite discourse. (How's that for post-modern language?) You feel like you can't contribute because your observation is going to be pummeled by a bunch of advanced analysis to which you do not have access. Perhaps all this talk about VORP and EQA and whatnot seems to turn a simple game enjoyed by all into a nerdy intellectual exercise.

Anyway, I don't agree with this analysis, but I can see that it makes some sense.

[docellis]

Hmmm. This has nothing to do with the interview thread.

[planet planet]

Hmmm. This has nothing to do with the interview thread.

I'm thinking these arguments are paper tigers.

[Michael]

I understand some have no interest in learning advanced metrics however what would you have us do, ban them? It's already been pointed out the majority of the threads hardly use them. I guess I don't understand all the tension.

[jdk82]

I dont hate the stats but I would definately be more interested if I knew what they meant and how to use them.

[Big Red Number 8]

Hmmm. This has nothing to do with the interview thread.

I'm thinking these arguments are paper tigers.

Saber tooth tigers?