bjamesw22

You're always on rluzinski like white on rice, and always playing the victim like you're somehow getting the short end of the stick. Whatever. Now YOU'RE making a generalization. you called out Russ and Brett I never singled him or them out. Someone else did. See directly below I'm sorry, but I started off this thread as something I thought was a good idea NOT as something to create controversy. They're not based on simulations, they're based on play-by-play data. All a simulation is is a quicker way to accumulate the same data you would if you compiled the data for many play-by-play games. Please, for everyone's sake, please please please try not to pick another fight out of all of this. I'm NOT picking a fight. I'm voicing my opinion on how partisan I believe the statistical analysis forum is. I just don't understand why or how statistics are now more important than having strategical knowledge. I'm sorry I don't agree with it and I think it is ok not to.

If you read the beginning of the thread that's how the thread started off. And I'm not the one who made it go in a different direction.

Same can be said about all of the statistical analysis topics. Why are they any different?

Now I say to hell with the whole thing, if that's the amount of respect you have for other points of view. WHAT?!? What does what I have to say have ANYTHING to do with not respecting other points of view? It does EXACTLY the same thing as the statistical analysis forum does. Many don't believe in relying on stats to make all of our decisions yet we have a forum that analyses just that. So why shouldn't there be a different forum for the other side. SABR guys have basically had their own forum created so that "everyone else" can reference to them when they deem us stupid for not relying on "facts" (stats). The creation of that forum is so partisan it is rediculas. It shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's been created as the place where the "gospel" is kept.

or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.? Yes. either way, most of that gets covered in the major league forum (i seem to remember participating in a 10-page discussion regarding a ben sheets suicide squeeze), and i really don't think it would be possible without stats being part of the discussion. I'm sorry, but there are tons of situations where the statistics show an advantage to one decision to another that almost every single manager would disagree with. So people can't talk about it? It's called traditional baseball knowledge, not "I know what I saw". I think you could take the discussion of game strategy to the stats forum, as a lot of us "SABR guys" base some of our views on in-game strategy on stats - things like bunts, SB's, etc. I'm sure if you wanted to post something related to that in that forum, it could generate discussion. No, it would create heated arguments. Stat guys don't agree with traditional baseball knowledge because if their stats don't back it up, they don't believe it. If you ask me, there are MANY discussions here that totally degenerate because of statistical talk. In a game that is so random like baseball, statistics that are formulated based on hundreds or thousands of simulations shouldn't be applied to many in-game situations if any. So in a case when you are talking about a suicide squeeze, hit and run, etc that happen maybe 3 times a year for suicide squeezes and probably 20 times for hitting and running how can you apply the probabilities to those situations when the probabilities are based upon hundreds and thousands of simulations? You can't and you shouldn't even try. It's traditional baseball knowledge and in-game strategy and we should be able to discuss it without an ounce of statistical reference.

Couldn't this thread title have been "Russ and Brett got their forum, why can't I have mine?" It's a logical question. Why make a republican forum and not make a democratic one? I could go on and on. To me it doesn't make sense. You're darn right, why make a SABR forum if you're not going to make a game strategy/traditional knowledge forum? The creation of the statistical analysis forum is totally biased and partisan. Your feeble attempt to create controversy and raise my blood pressure failed. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/grin.gif

My only warning is that these numbers don't take into account our ace pitcher being lost for the season. Let me say that I believe are chances are VERY bleak. But those numbers don't take a lot of other things into account also. I will hold to my prediction that the crew will be 83-79 when all is said and done.

I guess I don't understand why we have a Statistical Analysis Forum then. Why make that forum if you're not going to make one for the opposite end of the spectrum? EDIT: Why not ditch the Polls Forum? It's rarely used anyways.

I guess I'm talking about baseball strategy in general not in-game baseball strategy (well I guess some could be). For instance: Hit and Run Suicide Squeeze Fielding position for batters (like Bonds, etc.) 1st and 3rd situations etc. etc. etc.

minor league production isn't as important as talent. Are we talking about talent or athleticism? There is a difference.

Age makes a big difference when you're evaluating minor league talent and what level they should be at. They are only a year apart and neither of them have deserved to be at the levels they were at throughout their careers. Both of them had one good minor league year...at High Desert of course.

Don't forget that Hall was drafted out of HS and Scarborough played at Texas A&M. That, in all likelyhood, make Steve more ready to advance more quickly thru the system, as he was not only older but had played baseball at a higher level than Hall. But they were both rushed. Neither guys stats warranted promotions besides both of their seasons in High Desert. And they both were promoted after one year at each level no matter if they succeeded or not...obviously by looking at their numbers.

Now THAT chart I like! Good stuff there...thanks for digging that up. It pretty much shows that it doesn't matter who is pitching, we don't hit better or worse against anyone. You would at least think there would be a trend upwards the worse a pitchers ERA got. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/sick.gif

If however, 56% of the pollers sampled liked grape jelly, than you can safely conclude that grape jelly is, in fact, more popular (shame on them). No kidding, everyone knows strawberry jelly is the best! Morons! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/laugh.gif I understand what you're saying Russ. Thanks for the clarification. Hall was pushed, Scar was not. That's the major difference in my mind between their numbers. Scar: Rookie League in 1999 Indy by 2002. Hall: Rookie League in 1998 Indy by 2002. If anything, Scar was pushed equally if not more than Hall was. And the numbers for each are identical.

I picked swisher because as of right now, in 2005, he and Hall are nearly identical statistically. It's scary. You can say the same for the minor league careers of Bill Hall and Steve Scarborough too. Yes...scary. Scarborough Hall