12-17-2009, 08:03 PM
<!--quoteo(post=72067:date=Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 17 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72061:date=Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 17 2009, 05:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=72055:date=Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Dec 17 2009, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71982:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=71981:date=Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2009, 09:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I can't help but remain suspicious of defensive metrics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.
That's because they're bunk-ass bullshit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]
So how <i>would</i> you rate a player defensively?
Seriously.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Watch the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just find it funny that you are so against defensive stats because they're not subjective enough. Why are hitting stats ok? They're not subjective at all.
If Aramis hits four line drive screamers in the gap and is unlucky enough to have a fantastic centerfielder track down each one and make a diving catch, Ramirez get's a .000 average for the game (obviously).
Conversely, if Theriot hits four bloops in four plate appearances that fall in just in front of that centerfielder, he just got a 1.000 batting average. The stats have no subjectivity in them though. All you'll know at the end of the day is Theriot hit 1.000 and Ramirez hit .000.
Granted, more often than not over the course of the season, those lucky/unlucky hits balance themselves out on an individual basis. But really, couldn't you say the same thing about fielding stats? I'm not saying fielding stats are hugely conclusive, but I think they tend to give an idea of the capabilities of the individual player. Do you really feel that defensive stats mean nothing?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Raw offensive stats mean nothing without context either.