Okay, I don't know where the "baseball man" comment came from, but Grady Little is a baseball man. I agree with that. He sucked. Do we want to get into Tito and he manages a season and not a series in a season? I think he's great.
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 11:21 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Dealing Ellsbury? 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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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]. 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.
