Ditto. On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ray Salemi <[email protected]> wrote:
> I still have a prejudice against anyone called a "baseball man". I assume > that means they don't know what's really going on. As in, "Grady Little is > a great baseball man." > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Steve Ouellette <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Wait, you can't use Pedroia in the stats vs. scouting argument. Scouts >> hated Pedroia -- said he was too small and too slow. He was drafted because >> of the numbers he put up. When he was in the minors, the stat people >> projected huge numbers for him; the scouts said that wasn't possible at a >> higher level because of his big swing. >> >> No, height and weight are not stats (nor are jersey numbers, shoe size and >> date of birth). >> >> Steve O >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Beaudoin, John < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If you’re going to use my name, then please don’t speak for me and say >>> that I dismiss stats completely. I fully admit they are valuable and my >>> point, yet again, is that some people look only at the stats. Why can’t >>> someone say that they like the way a guy plays. Based on Pedroia’s >>> statiscal body size and weight, he shouldn’t have been given a chance. >>> Thank God there are scouts who see beyond stats. Or will you argue that >>> weight and height are not stats? >>> >>> >>> >>> How can you possibly say that objective counting says that Ellsbury >>> doesn’t get to as many balls? And who the heck wants to hear about Star >>> Trek Deep Space Nine during a baseball discussion? How many players >>> compared to Ellsbury in centerfield have to play in a ballpark with a >>> friggin triangle and a center field that is laid out just like Fenway Park? >>> Because of all the variables in baseball, you can’t draw concrete >>> conclusions. You’re entitled to your opinion, but you should not tell me my >>> opinion and then argue against it. Stats are valuable, but they are only a >>> piece of what I use to form my opinions. I believe that others on here talk >>> stats all the time and I don’t use anything but stats to form their >>> opinions. Or am I to believe that the few people on here who think Ellsbury >>> isn’t as good a centerfielder as JD Drew is a rightfielder must be smarter >>> than … say … 95% of the fans of baseball? >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ray Salemi >>> *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2009 10:47 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Dealing Ellsbury? >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Bill James would be unhappy to hear his name used this way. >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM, William Marino <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I will take a good scout, with a proven track record, over Bill James any >>> day of the week. >>> >>> >>> I got to see Bill James speak at the Museum of Science and I asked him a >>> question about this topic. I asked him if teams go through all this >>> statistical analysis, but then make the decision based on the opinion that >>> "he has a pretty swing." >>> >>> Bill James actually batted me down a bit in his answer. He said that he >>> felt this question of stats vs. scouts was a false question. He believes >>> that while stats are valuable, and need to be used, that scouts have >>> thousands of hours of experience and also know what they are talking about. >>> >>> John's mistake has been to dismiss stats completely, as he did earlier in >>> the thread. Stats provide insight. They especially provide insight to >>> those of use who do not have thousands of hours watching ballplayers and who >>> don't watch them every day. Fans are especially prone to only remember >>> plays that support their opinion. >>> >>> John claims that Ellbury gets to more balls than most players, but >>> objective counting says Ellsbury doesn't. In this case, intuition has to >>> give way to counting. I'm sorry, but no amount of intuition will make the >>> number four into the number five (even if you are being tortured by a >>> Cardassian sadist). >>> >>> -- >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Red Sox Citizens" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in > Just 12 Weeks" > www.leadingafteralayoff.com > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Red Sox Citizens" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<redsoxcitizens%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en.
