10-02-2009, 04:06 PM
<!--quoteo(post=65057:date=Oct 2 2009, 03:00 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Oct 2 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think a better way to label the current view of stats is to not call it "stats," as if it's some new invention that Billy Beane came up with. Stats have been a huge part of baseball since long before Ty Cobb.
I think the better word is <b>context</b>. For example, in tom's example, the guys relatively low .750 OPS is balanced out by him being a great fielder, a spectacular base stealer, and a sterling human being. Plus, a .750 OPS put up in the Padres Petco Park translates to something like an .850 OPS if he played in Coors Field.
It's all about context, I think.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yea, stats are just arbitrary numbers without context.
I think the better word is <b>context</b>. For example, in tom's example, the guys relatively low .750 OPS is balanced out by him being a great fielder, a spectacular base stealer, and a sterling human being. Plus, a .750 OPS put up in the Padres Petco Park translates to something like an .850 OPS if he played in Coors Field.
It's all about context, I think.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yea, stats are just arbitrary numbers without context.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy