In praise of Emil Brown
by boilerdan
on May 2, 2008 8:45 AM PDT
I was an "early adopter" of Bill James and have always loved the quantitative side of the game. I remember playing APBA baseball in the early 70's and calculating out OBP for players before drafting my teams - this was long before OBP was a reported stat. I pay close attention to L/R splits and think that teams still don't do enough to leverage these data. I also fully accept that "clutch" is largely chance and that over the length of a career a player's performance in clutch situations will likely match his overall stats pretty closely. All of this is to say that I recognize that Emil Brown is not my type of player - I saw little reason for his acquisition and have felt since spring training that he should be a spot starter against lefties - period.
So I come today to praise Emil Brown. I've decided to put aside the splits, ignore OBP, and purge "regression to the mean" and "small sample size" from my vocabulary for the time being. Instead, I intend to simply sit back as an A's fan and appreciate what this guy has done in the first month of the season and enjoy it as long as it lasts. Because more than being a stats guy, I'm an A's fan who wants them to win, and Brown has done nothing but help them do that. On top of that, he seems like a really decent and humble guy - despite my love of the numbers, I also like to like they guys on my team.
Unrelated observations: this team needs another infielder. Crosby and Ellis need a day off and I'm not sure flipping around Murphy is enough, because you know that they're just going to pinch hit for him later in the game. The A's had an unusually busy first month of the season and I think it's showing on those two guys. Also, I'd lke to see Bowen get one start a week - there is no reason to grind Suzuki into the ground, and Bowen is a pretty productive backup. Finally, I don't think this team can sustain Jack Cust in the OF for the full season. This is why I really didn't understand the Thomas acquisition. They pretty much have committed to have Cust "roam" the OF regularly, which scares me.
3 recs |
255
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Yeah, it's especially scary to have both Brown and Cust in the OF
Which is why I’m in favor of a platoon as soon as Brown comes down to earth.
by Sacred#24 on May 2, 2008 8:53 AM PDT 0 recs
Why not do it now?
If you know someone is going to “come down to earth,” why is it necessary to wait for him to actually do what you know he’s going to do anyway, and lose you ballgames in the process?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 10:14 AM PDT
up
0 recs
If this were a board game, sure.
I’m all for benching Brown in favor of someone better. I just don’t think making suggestions like that are worth the breath. It’s not a realistic move even by A’s-type management to bench a guy batting .300 and 2nd in the league in RBIs (Even if many of us would understand the move). So its just more practical to phrase all these like “when someone comes down to Earth”.
It’s like what I’ve been saying, Brown needs to come through with a clutch slump.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 10:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
heh...
It’s like what I’ve been saying, Brown needs to come through with a clutch slump.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Because he's hot
Just because I think he’ll cool off sooner or later doesn’t mean I’d waste his production during this hot streak. Maybe if Cust gets going (he looked good last night, yeah?) it would make more sense, but starting the leagues number two RBI guy once-twice per week would just be silly.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 10:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Hot streaks don't exist.
Sorry.
It’s a coincidence.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 10:28 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ridiculous assertion
Confidence fluctuates. Performance does likewise. Hot streaks exist as a byproduct of psychology. And luck, too, though if luck was the only variable involved, then I guess your point would be more valid, though you’d still have to acknoledge the existence of a streak, except I suppose the better terminology would be “lucky streak” as opposed to “hot streak.” But that’s a moot point anyway. That’s a laughably oversimplified viewpoint, PT. And I in turn oversimplified in my rebuttal…but that’s mainly because it doesn’t take much to respond to that argument, at least in the manner in which you phrased it.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 10:43 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No, it really is that simple
What a “hot” hitter has done over the last short while does not predict what he will do over a future short while. Confidence does not appear to have any consistent effect on a hitter’s performance. As many people are undone by overconfidence as enhanced by it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 10:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That is why it is called HOT, It will evntually cool off.
by theblackpearl on
May 2, 2008 10:49 AM PDT
up
0 recs
So what's the point of even saying it, then?
He’s eventually going to cool off. OK. Do you know exactly when? I don’t.
It’s completely useless information. It’s just a statistical curiosity, like my scenario of a guy making four putouts in an inning. It’s good for a chuckle or two. It’s worthless for making baseball decisions.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 10:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It may be completely useless
(Though I would argue it isn’t useless, at least not completely)...but saying that information is completely useless is much different than saying that that information doesn’t exist. That’s what you said in your initial post. Inconsistent.
“Sorry”
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 10:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
heh
I had the gall to post before previewing…and I’m paying the price with inadvertent italics.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:01 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Bingo!
He’s eventually going to cool off. OK. Do you know exactly when? I don’t.
Some read stats. Fans actually watch the games.
by UncleLeo on
May 2, 2008 11:16 AM PDT
up
0 recs
...OK, clearly I should have phrased that differently
so that it wouldn’t be intentionally misinterpreted by people… it does you no credit to actually do so, though.
Brown has a certain true talent level right now. I don’t know exactly what it is, but I suspect it’s around a mid-700s OPS in all base/out situations. It is as likely that he hits 100 OPS points under that true talent level in today’s game, or aggregated over the rest of the season, as that he hits 100 points over that level (as he has been doing for the past month).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 11:23 AM PDT
up
0 recs
he actually has a relatively pronounced RISP split
though his career is a relatively small sample size
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Situation is far too muddled...
How do you even define your terms? What does “right now” even refer to? This moment, this upcoming game, during this streak which you refuse to refer to as a hot one, something else?
Overlooking that, I like that you think you can hypothesize a “current” performance level for a player, which is a pretty absurd notion unless “right now” is taken to mean something much broader than what it would normally mean, like, “at this stage in his career.” In which case, you’ve taken the discussion to a point that may be valid in one sense, but is pretty far removed from the real-life nuances that, while easily dismissed under the luck umbrella by some, have an impact on Brown’s performance right now. And by right now, I mean during his, eh, hot streak.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
He had a hot streak the past few weeks
There is no reason to believe that right now, ie for tonight’s game, or for this upcoming series, that he is in the midst of a hot streak. Basically, if you were to make a lot of bets where you took a so slightly worse player who had been on a hot streak over a slightly better player on a cold streak, you would lose. This is demonstrably true of the past; no reason to believe it won’t be true in the future.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
May 2, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Thus buy low, sell high
Yes, I know this. This is not the same as saying that hot streaks don’t exist, or can’t be proven to exist, both of which have been PT’s claims. And which to me are two separate claims, but to him are one and the same.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:57 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
We’re not claiming to predict hot streaks or when they’ll end but that there is such a thing. He could cool off tomorrow. But he also could have been held out of the lineup for the last three weeks.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
amen
(name does have “sacred” in it, after all)
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
They're not the same?
What is this, Godelian logic theory?
Please explain how it would be possible for hot streaks to exist but to have it be unprovable that they do.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Because there's too many variables
And because the human brain isn’t completely understood, and because it’s a hard area to study.
If this were Godelian logic theory, however, then I’d be asking you to prove that hot-streaks don’t exist.
It’d be like asking you to prove that you’re attracted to women (I’m not making assumptions, just examples) which is basically impossible with the technology available to us.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 1:23 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hogwash
Researchers can easily measure sexual arousal in today’s labs.
Nice insinuation that I’m gay, though. Wrong, but clever.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 1:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Can researchers measure love?
Can researchers measure different types of love?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
May 2, 2008 1:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Do they play baseball in today's labs?
Thus the above line “with the technology available to us.”
I have seen (on ESPN about 10 years ago, so take it for what it’s worth) studies on what athletes call “the zone.” They were mostly related to basketball, and most of the evidence was circumstantial so I didn’t really want to bring it up because I know it won’t go far with your stats-are-everything philosophy.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 1:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You know, believe it or not
straw man arguments are not actually very convincing.
Feel free to indicate the place where I said “stats are everything.” I encourage you to try. It might cause you to actually read what I’ve written instead of instantly channeling it into your rigorous little mental box labeled “stathead.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 1:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well, you're dismissing something because there's no statistical proof
So it sure sounds like you rely very heavily (at the least) on statistics to base your arguments on. And I would actually agree about 85% of the time that stats are 100% accurate, but the other 20% is something you cant be 100% sure about.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 2:41 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No, I am dismissing something because it has been statistically proved that it doesn't exist
There is a gaping chasm of difference between the two.
It has not been statistically proved that enormous pitch counts are a bad thing. That doesn’t mean I dismiss the notion and think managers should throw starters out there for 200 pitches a game.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 3:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yay perfect time for poker
I just got AKs, JJ, and my 9Ts sucked out on someone else’s aces. I’m all-in-in-the-dark next hand.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 12:37 PM PDT
up
0 recs
heh
what are you playing? I’ve played enough lately to get to the PlatinumStar level on PStars. Highlight of the past few weeks (since I made my initial $75 deposit) was beating Greg Raymer heads up for a seat at the WSOP main event. He had 16.5k chips at the start of heads up play, I had 7.5k. I won in five hands. I’ve never had people calling me up after a win in an Internet poker tournament, but…I was flooded with voicemails after that one.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
skeptic here
While it is theoretically possible to do what you claim to have done in just a few weeks—parlay $75 into a seat at a $10,000 buy-in tournament—that’s basically a 1-1400 proposition, consider me more than skeptical that that is in fact what you just did. I suspect that you either are fibbing period or had a lot more money in play (or a lot longer to build it up) than $75.
And I have played against a lot of top pros and do reasonably well though obviously I’m not a pro/phenom or I wouldn’t be hanging around here, would I?
by madmongoose on
May 2, 2008 1:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well if you need to know...PokerStars has...
a 6-step system, where you can buy it at any step, and then ascend to the next step until you reach the 6th, at which point you need to be the outright winner to win the WSOP seat and money for expenses. I bought in at step 3, which cost $80 or $85. I finished in the top two, and moved to step 4. Top two again, step 5. Top two, step 6. Step 6 has a cash value of $2100, so 2-6 are awarded various amounts of money, but all less than the buy-in (ranges from $1500-$500, descending order obviously). So it’s pretty top-heavy. The last person to enter the tournament (these are all 9-person sit-n-go tournaments, btw) was “FossilMan.” We got to heads up play after he gambled in the big blind by calling an all-in for 90% of his stack with A6 preflop to knock out the third place finisher. I beat him in five hands. Look up the cash qualifiers to the WSOP on PokerStars if you’re familiar with the site. Cutthemullet is listed.
And I built up my bankroll before that….
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 1:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
and of course...
I proceeded to lose much of my bankroll by playing 100-200 limit drunk Saturday night. Still in the main event, though. Can’t wait till July 3rd.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 1:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Some pros just liked baseball more the whole time and missed it.
Also, you are forgetting that it might be attempt 8 million with $75. I once parlayed like $200 bankroll into a $25k seat.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 3:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I always love the stat guys
at a poker table when Im on a white hot streak. They keep calling and I keep betting.
by asfaninpismobeach on
May 2, 2008 5:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
please sit at my table
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 5:48 PM PDT
up
0 recs
and Sacred#24...
mentions many of the nuances that I was referring to in his post below. Some of the factors shouldn’t even be considered nuances. They’re pretty fucking obvious. Albert Belle would look for reasons to get angry before games, because he fed off of that. Baseball is not the same as football, where I could cite that Jaguars’ DT John Henderson has a coach slap him in the face before every game, but still, there are so many factors in play that may on average even out over a prolonged period of time, but not on a case-by-case basis. Looking at Mark Wohlers’ career, statistically, one might call the end of it a statistical aberration. That would not exactly be doing his demise justice, now, would it?
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
in case Wohlers has been forgotten...
He had an Ankiel-eque ending to an otherwise Koch-esque career.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
except...
he didn’t reinvent himself as a power-hitting centerfielder. Maybe Micah Owings will do that in ten years.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
By "current performance level"
I mean something like his Marcel the Monkey projections (which move up and down slightly over time as a player’s performance is regressed to the mean and to his prior performance levels).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 11:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No, it's not
There are factors that need to be considered that can’t necessarily be quantified. Believe it or not guys, you can’t measure every aspect of sports with statistical analysis.
And yes, confidence plays a huge role. Hitters tend to press and swing at bad pitches when they’re in a slump (Paul, is a slump just a long case of bad luck?) and tend to get better wood on the ball when they’re hot.
This is an obvious part of sports and I’m amazed that you can’t accept that. Any athlete will tell you that they play better when they have confidence in they’re ability. Likewise, concentration plays a huge role, as does health, motivation, and a slough of other factors that can’t be measured. You can call it luck if it makes you feel better, but please explain why “luck” tends to come in bunches then.
by Sacred#24 on
May 2, 2008 11:43 AM PDT
up
0 recs
There are certainly aspects of sports you can't measure with statistical analysis
This just isn’t one of them. This one CAN be measured with analysis, and the measurement turns out to indicate that confidence has zero impact on a guy’s hitting ability.
Hitting luck comes in exactly the number of bunches we would expect it to if there was no such thing as a hot hitter. There will still be lots of bunches, because that’s what “random” means.
Slumps are a different story, not least because a lot of them are actually injuries or illness causing players to play below their normal talent level. There’s also the Devo conjecture—that players are far more likely to play below their talent level when “under pressure” (whether the pressure comes from a high-leverage situation, fear for their jobs, or a long slump) than they are to play above it, because they normally play at essentially the highest level possible for them.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:01 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If you were to direct me to a study which convincingly quantified "confidence"...
I would concede my point. Instead, I can decisively say that there has never, ever been a measurement that
turns out to indicate that confidence has zero impact on a guy’s hitting ability.
I mean, do you realize what you’re saying there? That confidence has been SHOWN to have zero impact on hitting? That is false. Even if it were the case that confidence had zero impact on hitting ability, it certainly hasn’t been shown.
Absurd.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not the one who implied that hot streaks were a symbolic proxy
for mental focus, a la Cust’s performance last night.
We can retrace our steps if you’d like. Replace “confidence” in the above sentence with “success in immediately preceding games.” Happy?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Mistaken inference, perhaps intentionally
That was an example, which will necessarily oversimplify. Don’t intentionally misinterpret, as you accused someone else of doing upthread. I was using that example to make the point that focus is one of many factors that can fluctuate and affect performance. Cust last night was an immediate example. It does remain to be seen whether or not this past game will trigger what I and most others would consider to be a “hot streak”, since a “hot streak” emerges over some number of games.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:29 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If we take Cust's postgame comments at face value...
He claimed that the then-costly error made him “bear down” at the plate and increase his concentration…well, that is indeed one possible effect that error could have on one’s psyche. And then the increased concentration carries over for some period of time until some unforeseen event diminshes it. This is the inconvenient boundary for statistical analysis…now, admittedly, he could just be saying that to offer an explanation of the events as they happened, as in, trying to make sense of what happened rather than actually knowing or thinking that that happened. “That must have been what happened, but I don’t really know” vs. “that did happen, or I think it did happen.” In the former, we wouldn’t be taking his comments at face value, then; for the latter, we would be. But I think in either scenario it’s hard to dismiss the impact of an error on later at-bats. The old mythical observation about a guy making a great play in the field, then immediately hitting a home run, well, that’s a phenomenon for which we don’t even have a sample size, because that’s one of the few aspects of any part of the game that has yet to be subjected to stat. analysis, but…it makes sense. Natural testosterone boost, you know? And it’s not like we don’t know what effect artificial testosterone boosts can have at the plate.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Post facto rationalizations are the easiest thing in the world to come up with
Seriously. Give me any scenario, and I will come up with a post facto rationalization that fits the fact pattern.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 11:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Hence my acknowledgment of it
You reduce your credibility considerably by taking the strongest possible stance in an argument—it’s ok to qualify what you say. In fact, it’s preferable.
I don’t deny that it’s common for people to offer such explanations. But in this case, it’s not all that important. Because even if, hypothetically, the error and the home run, or any event that immediately precedes the beginning of a :hot streak”, are/is unrelated, that does nothing to dismiss the notion that hot streaks a) exist, and b) can be precipitated by something(s). Evidence and existence are not the same. In your world, though, it appears that they are.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It's impossible to prove a negative
All we can say is that there’s absolutely zero evidence for hot streaks existing (independent of normal luck fluctuations). That is, literally, what the statement “hot streaks don’t exist” means.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
No, literally, that is not what that statement means
I repeat: evidence is not the same as existence.
The fact that there currently is no statistical evidence for their existence has no bearing on whether there will be statistical evidence for them in the future. This is a simple concept, and I find it amusingly ironic that it’s lost on someone who deploys oversimplifcations as regularly as you do.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The odds of statistical evidence for hot streaks emerging
are infinitesimally small. Like, 1/(number of atoms in the universe) small.
You can look at any period of baseball history. You will find the same results. I suppose it could be the case that there really are hot hitters but that THEY somehow have, throughout history, had their hotness EXACTLY CANCELED OUT by bad luck to the point where their performance just LOOKS exactly random to confuse us into thinking that it is. And that in future, their hotness will show up and not be canceled out by bad luck.
William of Ockham, and I, think that that is utter and complete nonsense.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs
So if a player has the highest avg, hrs, rbis and OPS, for
a whole month, ever in MLB, then hit Crosbyesque for the next month, then went back to the career norm for that hitter, then what would you call that first month? A whole month of luck? He was hot for a month and cooled off. no matter what you think exists, it is what you call a lucky streak, everyone else calls it a hot streak. You are always arguing semantics, or other peoples classification of something that is different from yours.
by theblackpearl on
May 2, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You can call it whatever you want
Paraphrasing Lincoln: You can say your dog has five legs, if you call its tail a leg. But if I have a machine that can only be operated by a 5-legged dog, I ain’t buying your dog.
Similarly, you can call Emil Brown’s first month whatever you want—as long as you don’t then say that it’s evidence that he should keep starting ballgames, because it isn’t.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
well, he should surely be starting against LHSPs, shouldn't he?
I mean, I’d prefer we got Jonny Gomes to do that, but …
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
May 2, 2008 12:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
True
In fact, he definitely should keep starting against lefties, because it will inflate his rate stats and make him look like a better trade candidate/make him more likely to be Type B.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 12:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yup
I really hope that’s Beane’s intended endgame.
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
May 2, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
portmanteau: "intendgame"
And what did we do once we discovered a rift in the fourth dimension? We launched a monkey into it. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
May 2, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'd start him over Denorfia (or whoever) vs. RHPs at this point
as they’re doing; then a platoon with Cust when Buck comes back.
The A's colors are green and gold.
by mikeA on
May 2, 2008 12:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You can make that argument
As long as you don’t equate that with the other, completely different argument you’ve made.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If PT rephrased
“There is no such thing as hot streaks” to “It’s stupid to make decisions based on hot streaks” would that settle everything? I’m unclear.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on
May 2, 2008 12:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That wouldn't just be re-phrasing
That would be changing the argument completely. And I agree almost completely with the new argument you’ve offered.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs
...................
OK, so hot streaks exist, but it’s stupid to base decisions on them?
Why? Why is it stupid, if they exist? Shouldn’t you act on them?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
They exist, but they're unpredictable
You’re not getting anywhere.
To reach here
gliding into old age
the decades gone
without ever meeting one person
truly evil
without ever meeting one person
truly exceptional
without ever meeting one person
truly good
gliding into old age
the decades gone
the mornings are the worst.
by Cutthemullet on
May 2, 2008 1:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Really.
Unpredictable.
You don’t say. You might almost term them… random. Perhaps even, if you had just taken a shot of dutch courage and were feeling particularly frisky, “lucky.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
May 2, 2008 1:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Like in other areas, your sarcasm's a work in progress
Well, I like to think there’s potential for progress, anyway.
The onset of a specific hot streak could be brought about by a plethora of factors, we’ve discussed that. Whether or not you choose to account for them, I can’t control that, just as you can’t control for every fucking variable that is relevant in relation to the performance of a particular human being at any fucking job at any fucking time. The end? Can’t really control for that, either. Emil gets hit by a truck tomorrow. Well, that would do it. Emil gets a new shipment of HGH. Well, that wouldn’t. Emil does nothing different from his normal routine. He eats chicken pregame and takes the field at 3:07 (I think…help me out on that one, Wade Boggs fans). Well, who knows?
The key is not in identifying the long-term trends—that’s easy, has been done, even mere laymen like you can do that. The key lies in extracting more truth from them…as of now, we don’t know what to do in every given circumstance. And that’s probably a good thing, because, eh, I’d rather there