02-09-2009, 08:35 PM
<!--quoteo(post=16896:date=Feb 9 2009, 05:08 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Feb 9 2009, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=16881:date=Feb 9 2009, 04:21 PM:name=dk123)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dk123 @ Feb 9 2009, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=16869:date=Feb 9 2009, 03:56 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Feb 9 2009, 03:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=16862:date=Feb 9 2009, 03:45 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Feb 9 2009, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=16861:date=Feb 9 2009, 02:41 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 9 2009, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Well, that's accurate, rok. I agree with that 100%. Stats can't tell you everything, and nothing replaces the joy of watching a ballgame.
But a few people on the site have turned it into a black-and-white thing, a line in the sand: if you bring stats into any baseball discussion, you must never watch the actual sport. Ludicrous as hell, yet some posters still cling to it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who? Everybody likes stats, it's just usually they don't tell the whole story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just seems to me from watching baseball and life in general that clutch has to exist. Just because stats use math, does not necessarily make them more valid than human observation. Statistical analysis is based on many assumptions(biases) that are explained away by invoking the law of large numbers. Unless the stats disagree with the person's opinions and then they are based on insufficient sample size.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human observation can be pretty faulty.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human observation can also be very accurate and statistical analysis can also be very faulty. I have never met a person who deals with statistics in the real world who does not take them with a grain of salt. If you come up with your premise first and then do the stats, how can it not be biased. That is the way it is in academics/science. Theory then data then statistical analysis to back it up. Not to say it is always wrong, but it tends to be biased.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sipes, I think that is true. Undeniably true.
But what about those times when the stat findings <i>contradict</i> your original theory? Wouldn't that actually strengthen your faith in the stats, because they actually went <i>against</i> your human biases?
Here's my baseball example: I wondered, <b>who is the clutchest guy in all of MLB?</b> Who has the rep, who have we all seen come through countless times?
My answer was Manny Ramirez. He bludgeoned the Cubs in the playoffs. He bludgeoned the eventual champion Phillies. He's a World Series MVP. To me, he really seems to slough off pressure, and come through. Ice-water in his veins.
And i don't think I'm alone...if you polled all baseball fans about this question, I would bet that Manny would be the #1 answer to the question "Who is the most clutch hitter in baseball?"
So then I thought, "what was the single most clutch situation of his career?" And the answer was easy...the late innings of Game 7 of the World Series. And lo and behold, he'd actually lived out that very situation! A perfect experiment!
So what took place? Eighth inning, one-run ballgame, <i>everything</i> on the line...
Manny strikes out.
But wait...the game goes to extra innings! The ultimate baseball fan's dream: an extra-inning, super intensity Game Seven.
So Manny comes up in the 10th inning, tie ballgame, man on base. The runner on base represents the game-winning, <i>World Series</i>-winning run! You want a clutch situation?
Manny strikes out.
Well, there goes my theory about Manny being "clutch." Done in by those darn ol' "statistics" again.
That, and the old "small sample size" thing.
But a few people on the site have turned it into a black-and-white thing, a line in the sand: if you bring stats into any baseball discussion, you must never watch the actual sport. Ludicrous as hell, yet some posters still cling to it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who? Everybody likes stats, it's just usually they don't tell the whole story.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just seems to me from watching baseball and life in general that clutch has to exist. Just because stats use math, does not necessarily make them more valid than human observation. Statistical analysis is based on many assumptions(biases) that are explained away by invoking the law of large numbers. Unless the stats disagree with the person's opinions and then they are based on insufficient sample size.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human observation can be pretty faulty.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human observation can also be very accurate and statistical analysis can also be very faulty. I have never met a person who deals with statistics in the real world who does not take them with a grain of salt. If you come up with your premise first and then do the stats, how can it not be biased. That is the way it is in academics/science. Theory then data then statistical analysis to back it up. Not to say it is always wrong, but it tends to be biased.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sipes, I think that is true. Undeniably true.
But what about those times when the stat findings <i>contradict</i> your original theory? Wouldn't that actually strengthen your faith in the stats, because they actually went <i>against</i> your human biases?
Here's my baseball example: I wondered, <b>who is the clutchest guy in all of MLB?</b> Who has the rep, who have we all seen come through countless times?
My answer was Manny Ramirez. He bludgeoned the Cubs in the playoffs. He bludgeoned the eventual champion Phillies. He's a World Series MVP. To me, he really seems to slough off pressure, and come through. Ice-water in his veins.
And i don't think I'm alone...if you polled all baseball fans about this question, I would bet that Manny would be the #1 answer to the question "Who is the most clutch hitter in baseball?"
So then I thought, "what was the single most clutch situation of his career?" And the answer was easy...the late innings of Game 7 of the World Series. And lo and behold, he'd actually lived out that very situation! A perfect experiment!
So what took place? Eighth inning, one-run ballgame, <i>everything</i> on the line...
Manny strikes out.
But wait...the game goes to extra innings! The ultimate baseball fan's dream: an extra-inning, super intensity Game Seven.
So Manny comes up in the 10th inning, tie ballgame, man on base. The runner on base represents the game-winning, <i>World Series</i>-winning run! You want a clutch situation?
Manny strikes out.
Well, there goes my theory about Manny being "clutch." Done in by those darn ol' "statistics" again.
That, and the old "small sample size" thing.
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance