I’d like to interrupt our regularly scheduled lefty debate by saying this thread has just become only the 7th in the main forum’s history to reach 1,000 replies. That’s no easy feat, but even more remarkably, it only took 52,000 views (and change) to achieve it. A stunning lurking/chiming ratio!
As you were… :) https://ibb.co/C8MDVmt |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Brian...I have now posted twice on the thread, both times in regard to what should have been 'of' in the title. I predict my persistence will eventually pay of (misspelled on purpose to drive home my point). |
Quote:
Soccer is no exception. Just because you can identify talent without statistics doesn't mean that you can't better identify talent WITH statistics. Many of the things a midfielder does to help his team win doesn't get tracked, or at least hasn't been historically. But that's changing and will continue to change in the future as more and more data savvy owners recognize the value that statistical analysis adds to their organization. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The model I described above is not aimed at proving Koufax is the best, or anyone else for that matter. What I described is a tool for measuring the impact that something like a change in mound heights or a widened strike zone has on performance. It can also be used to estimate something like the overall talent level decrease across the league during WW2, and pretty much anything else that you want to understand the impact of. Then, if you want, you could use the results of that model to build a separate model to more accurately evaluate pitching performances from different eras. It would give you a better metric than WAR. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's all just too speculative when one tries to make direct comparisons. Another point that has occurred to me, today's pitchers I presume have access to data that literally analyzes every pitch a hitter has ever taken or swung at and I presume there are people who can turn that into useful information. In Koufax's day, they probably had little more than anecdotal information to go on, and in pre-team meetings came up with brilliant strategies like smoke him inside. Counterpoint, I guess, is that batters now have the same information about the pitcfhers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Statistics often ignore the human element, like this would be. How would one ever even measure and quantify something like this from a statistical standpoint to reflect the obvious negative impact such an action by a player would bring to his perception by the public at large? Actually, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I can see some statistician quantify such actions. Upon hearing some player purposely threw some gains by performing poorly on purpose, I can see a statistician go back and remove the player's performance results from those thrown games from his overall stats, because those thrown games are not a true reflection of the players actual ability, and therefore taint his statistical database. But doing that actually helps make the player statistically better and more likely to be considered the "greatest", and not less likely as I would expect to be the case in the eyes of a majority of the public upon learning what the player had done. And if such ever did occur, it would just reflect another disconnect between the real and statistical worlds. |
Quote:
One of the measures mentioned in this thread is "If you had one game to win, like a Game 7, who do you want?" I have often thought that the single guy I DO NOT want on my team, for a big game, would be Chase. I wouldn't want him within 20 miles of the ballpark. The bigger the game, the more lucrative it might be for Chase to throw. So, there are some who call Chase the best first baseman of his day, while I'll call him the worst with Gandil not far behind. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
From wikipedia : it was universally understood that all eight implicated White Sox players were to be banned from Major League Baseball for life. Two other players believed to be involved were also banned. One of them was Hal Chase, who had been effectively blackballed from the majors in 1919 for a long history of throwing games and had spent 1920 in the minors. He was rumored to have been a go-between for Gandil and the gamblers, though it has never been confirmed. Regardless of this, it was understood that Landis' announcement not only formalized his 1919 blacklisting from the majors but barred him from the minors as well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Mariners have never made it to the World Series. I'm not talking about winning it, I'm just talking about making it there. They are the only team in the entire MLB to have never made it. They haven't even made the Playoffs one single time in the last 20 years. And in their entire 44 year history, they've made it 4 times. Yep, that's right, they failed to make the playoffs 40 times out of their 44 seasons. All this despite having one of the greatest center fielders of all time, THE greatest shortstop of all time (and please don't come back at me with some nonsense about Honus Wagner being better), and arguably the greatest pitcher of all time in Randy Johnson ALL ON THE SAME TEAM AT THE SAME TIME. Meanwhile, the Knicks have made it to the NBA finals 8 times, winning it twice. They've also made the playoffs 43 times! Granted, they've been around for 75 years, but even if you cut their numbers in half, hell, cut them in a fourth, they're still miles better of a franchise than the Mariners. When I said the Mariners were the worst franchise in sports, I meant that literally. You cannot find a worse performing team than the M's in any major sport in the United States. I'm sure there's some international soccer team somewhere from some island without potable water that miiiiight have a worse record than the Mariners, so I don't know if I can say with confidence that they are the worst team on the planet in any sport ever, but they're the worst team in any sport I'm aware of, and they're definitely the worst team in any major US sport and it's really not even close. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Padres have won 46% of their games and 1 World Series game since 1969. I'd say it's quite close. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
CJ, Please don't start posting all kinds of numbers and other numerical data like that. Next thing you know, some statisticians will come on here and see it, and use it to claim they have created a statistical formula or equation that will allow them to accurately predict and name the winner of every debate thread here on Net54. And I wouldn't be surprised if they had their formulas somehow always pointed right back to them being the projected debate winners. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That's an absolutely great observation, agree. And by mentioning how some people may choose to define "greatest" by whom they would pick for a single WS game, versus how they performed during their peak playing years, or alternatively over their entire career, it underscores the need for all participants in such a discussion to first come to a consensus agreement as to exactly what "greatest" means. Secondly, then deciding on what they would agree upon as the appropriate measures to make their determination. And only after all that, then would you start looking at individual player's stats and data. And if the definition was to be defined by who you would pick to start game7 of the WS, since we're only talking about a pitcher's single best game, and not their performance over a season or their career, do you think an argument could/should be made for Don Larsen? He cleary had the greatest single game pitching performance of any WS pitcher in MLB history. |
Quote:
And besides, Johnson did sign a contract to play, and got a lot of money for doing so. If he didn't like it, still honor the contract and leave when the contract is over, if they won't otherwise trade you, right? No one put a gun to his head to originally sign, did they? And I'm guessing he didn't decline to accept, or pay back, what he got paid for any thrown games either. |
the Lions...
Quote:
My Dad and I gave up on them a few years ago after wasting too many Sunday afternoons watching them create new and creative ways to lose games. Season after season of watching them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory each week felt bad for our health. We're much happier now. :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And along those lines, can't remember if it was Dimaggio, Mantle, or some other player who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that they always went out and played every game as hard/well as they could, even if they were hurting or slightly injured, because they knew some kid/person had paid for their ticket to come and watch him play that day. And that's the kind of person/player you put into a conversation of greatest of all time. It's that intangible human factor that statistics can't measure. |
Quote:
I'm thinking you're being way to generous there. Maybe a third-@ss, or even a quarter-@ss effort? :eek: |
Quote:
Randy being a quitter that year could be why he has such a small fan base and the reason his cards are dirt cheap. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The majority of players, especially the great ones, know one of the most important things they can ever do is play for their fans. And Jeter is a particularly great example. Heck, how many times in his career did he hurt himself trying to make a play he should have just let go? |
Quote:
Ah, nevermind. Bad idea. Silly me thinking statistics can help answer questions. That's just like, my opinion, man. |
Quote:
|
Randy Johnson 1st 60 percent of 1998 ERA 4.33 (SEA)
Randy Johnson 2nd 40 percent of 1998 ERA 1.28 (HOU) His WHIP went down by .3 from SEA to HOU Maybe the DHs were killing him. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:20 PM. |