03-04-2010, 08:43 PM
<!--quoteo(post=81603:date=Mar 4 2010, 06:25 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 4 2010, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=81587:date=Mar 4 2010, 05:13 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Mar 4 2010, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=81581:date=Mar 4 2010, 05:01 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Mar 4 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Just for example...in 2008, MLB batting average was .264. For every guy that hit .290, 20 guys hit .238? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I admitted in my first rebuttal to your questioning of his statement, perhaps the math isn't exact, but are you really going to argue with the basic premise? (That superstars are really hard to come by, and decent players are a dime-a-dozen, and can often be easily replaced by a good AAA guy, or a decent platoon?)
Remember the Angels GM who, when unloading Nolan Ryan, said "He went 16-14 last year. Big deal, we'll replace him with two guys who'll go 8-7."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. What I'm going to argue is that 10% over league average is not a superstar and that the discrepancy between 10% over and 10% under is nowhere near 20 to 1.
And there's nothing for you to 'admit." It's on James...he's a (perhaps THE) stats guy. He doesn't get to be hyperbolic about numbers like that. I say that as one that likes Bill James a lot.
And Butcher, I think you contradicted yourself. I think you just explained the main reason that there aren't 20 .238 hitters for every .290 hitters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Straw, I really have to agree with Butcher (and Bill James) on this. Even in your own example, .290 MLB hitters are <i>not</i> easy to come by. For example, only 2 Cubs hit over .290 last year, and they're, by far, our 2 best hitters (D Lee, Aramis).
Yet there TONS of guys who can hit .238. In fact, we probably have 6-7 guys in AAA who could hit .238 if given the AB's, which is exactly Bill James' point...decent, mediocre players are a dime-a-dozen, so paying them big money is a complete waste of resources. (see Grabow, John).
As I admitted in my first rebuttal to your questioning of his statement, perhaps the math isn't exact, but are you really going to argue with the basic premise? (That superstars are really hard to come by, and decent players are a dime-a-dozen, and can often be easily replaced by a good AAA guy, or a decent platoon?)
Remember the Angels GM who, when unloading Nolan Ryan, said "He went 16-14 last year. Big deal, we'll replace him with two guys who'll go 8-7."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. What I'm going to argue is that 10% over league average is not a superstar and that the discrepancy between 10% over and 10% under is nowhere near 20 to 1.
And there's nothing for you to 'admit." It's on James...he's a (perhaps THE) stats guy. He doesn't get to be hyperbolic about numbers like that. I say that as one that likes Bill James a lot.
And Butcher, I think you contradicted yourself. I think you just explained the main reason that there aren't 20 .238 hitters for every .290 hitters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Straw, I really have to agree with Butcher (and Bill James) on this. Even in your own example, .290 MLB hitters are <i>not</i> easy to come by. For example, only 2 Cubs hit over .290 last year, and they're, by far, our 2 best hitters (D Lee, Aramis).
Yet there TONS of guys who can hit .238. In fact, we probably have 6-7 guys in AAA who could hit .238 if given the AB's, which is exactly Bill James' point...decent, mediocre players are a dime-a-dozen, so paying them big money is a complete waste of resources. (see Grabow, John).
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