Obviously, these same baseball people though Alfredo Simon, Joel Hannrahan and/or Jacques Jones were the answer. The fact that some GM or manager spouts that a player is good (i.e. Torey Lovullo) does not make it so.
Mmm, hard to say how much was Dave Dombrowski, right? Also, very few people were enthused by any of those players, I know I wasn't. I think the DD-era can be described as flash surrounded my mediocrity with a fringe of neglect.
Statistics are a historical representation of what happened. Stats are either illustrative (AVG, HR, RBI, and SB) or predictive (RC, BB%, LD%, and BABIP). Most everyone understands what illustrative stats are. In my observation/discussion with others on this board, few fully understand what predictive stats are.
True enough. I think the bigger issue with "predictive stats" is that they are only half, no not half, the story. Inside the numbers are always technique, personality, and an infinity of other factors both large and small that affect those numbers. Even
if the results conform to a mean the possibility of exceeding the mean is the story for me. Also, often the mean is based upon non-statistical, fuzzy stuff.
Let me ask you this, where were you on the JV? Were you in the camp of he's done? Or did you see through the noise to the signal?
Where are you on him next year and why?
There is a reason that more and more baseball teams are employing analytics. And now, supposedly, the Tigers are this year.
The Tigers have said they are, they have a high profile hire, why the non-rational "supposedly"--this is clearly an indication of bias and bias is the enemy of statistical facts.
Now after citing all of this, I will be the first one to say that every stat has it's bias. Some great, some not so great. And a certain set of metrics/analystics might be 98% predictive, it isn't 100%. There will be career aberrations, either for the good or bad.
Smarter sabermatics than me have studied the historical data and published white paper after white paper. Even I don't believe everything that is conveyed.
Yeah, I have a healthy respect for the human thumb on the scale: observer bias and the fallibility of humans. I think our current obsession with measuring through numbers could ruin us if it were to last for another few generations. But it has reached its peak, and like the tide, will recede and achieve equilibrium with other sorts of human knowledge formations.
This is a message board. The appeal is the debate. People are expected to voice their opinion and then defend that position. Most that have run ins with me take the eye test position, which is almost undefinable. Yet, when confronted with statistical analysis, they attack the messenger rather than debating the merits of the stats used. And then there are others who never express an opinion, they just ridicule the opinions of others.
You have even used the Tigers aren't in the same as the Phillies. To me, that is purely a subjective position and isn't founded by objective data.
Subjective does not = wrong, although, I think my case was pretty clearly
not pure opinion but based in easily verifiable facts.
First, the Phillies have a $100mil payroll, the Tigers have a $200mil+ payroll. If the Phillies spent $100mil on payroll they'd have
at least a competitive team if not a pretty good team. The Tigers and Ilitch have demonstrated their willing spend and ability to spend, in general, effectively more often than not.
Second, the Phillies ownership is not stable, nor does it have the sort of wealth Mike Ilitch has, they also do not seem to have his commitment (the man played baseball professionally as a young man and is a
keen sports fan, he owns two sports franchises).
Third, geographically, the Phillies face significantly greater competition for fans (viewership and attendance) and while the population density on the east coast is greater, I suspect, just giving it a quick gloss, that this still means they have a slightly smaller fan base than the Tigers can count on.
Fourth, compare the Phillies high dollar players that brought them to the pit of despair to the Tigers high dollar players.
These are not that subjective but instead are pretty objectively factual statements, either easily proven or provable.
Finally, I will add that yes this is a location of debate, but if Nate Silver came here he'd win every argument he got into. But that wouldn't necessarily be because he is so much smarter, right? But because he can bring greater fire-power to bare easier than the rest of us
and he'd be willing to do so because it is sort of his job. My point is, that escalation of a debate is a way to win it when your opponent has other things they'd rather do, not that I'm accusing you of doing that.
