In point of fact, I do play Dungeons and Dragons
76 Comments Published by Colin Wyers on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM.
Well this is fun:
I am going to note, however - the concept of "dork," "loser," etc. is extremely relative. And it strikes me that, well, to someone who isn't highly invested in such matters, that running your own Cubs blog kinda qualifies you as one. And I don't think society at large spends a large amount of time distinguishing between SABR-minded geeks and geeks who simply care about grit and hustle.
Seriously, dude, you have more in common with the Dungeons & Dragons Baseball Dork Stat World than you do with non-baseball fans. And you're not going to convince the dungeon masters of the world to believe in your point of view by insulting them.
But that's all well and good - civility isn't exactly trading as a commodity on blogs, and I can be... unsubtle when I care to be.
I just find the irony too compelling to ignore. "Hah! Those guys and their numbers! They should be playing some other game that I can mock, and not this game that I like!" Baseball... yeah, it's a game. Take that in, if you want. Games are fun; I like games an awful lot. I like them whether or not it's baseball, or football, or Dungeons and Dragons, or poker or Settlers of Cataan. I really
don't understand the obsession with making sure other people are having the right kind of fun.
[T]hey think it’s the coolest thing in the world to see a baseball player mention babip… as though their entire Dungeons & Dragons Baseball Dork Stat World is entirely validated. Idiots.I'm truly not interested in hashing through this guy's points. I don't think anything meaningful would be achieved by a blow-by-blow analysis - he's about as persuasive as running water, and given my readership I'd probably be preaching to the choir. As far as mocking him, well, he's pretty much low-hanging fruit.
...I’m going to finish this post by patting myself on the back. In my last post, I think I summarized the dumbfuck stat heads as best as can possibly be done. I crack up laughing looking at it:
These dumbfucks may as well be playing Dungeons and Fucking Dragons with their fucking stats.
The losers at ACB should make this their quote of the year because, well… these guys may as well be playing Dungeons and Fucking Dragons. Fucking dorks. Take your fucking WARP3 and shove it up your dungeon master’s ass.
I am going to note, however - the concept of "dork," "loser," etc. is extremely relative. And it strikes me that, well, to someone who isn't highly invested in such matters, that running your own Cubs blog kinda qualifies you as one. And I don't think society at large spends a large amount of time distinguishing between SABR-minded geeks and geeks who simply care about grit and hustle.
Seriously, dude, you have more in common with the Dungeons & Dragons Baseball Dork Stat World than you do with non-baseball fans. And you're not going to convince the dungeon masters of the world to believe in your point of view by insulting them.
But that's all well and good - civility isn't exactly trading as a commodity on blogs, and I can be... unsubtle when I care to be.
I just find the irony too compelling to ignore. "Hah! Those guys and their numbers! They should be playing some other game that I can mock, and not this game that I like!" Baseball... yeah, it's a game. Take that in, if you want. Games are fun; I like games an awful lot. I like them whether or not it's baseball, or football, or Dungeons and Dragons, or poker or Settlers of Cataan. I really
don't understand the obsession with making sure other people are having the right kind of fun.
Labels: Baseball, Other Blogs
I do believe that this is the first reference to Settlers of Catan in the history of baseball weblogs. Needless to say, I am impressed with your geekiness.
I wouldn't expect it to be the last reference around here - I haven't spent a lot of time playing Catan but I do enjoy it quite a bit.
I know the intersect between fans of sports and fans of gaming isn't so large - certainly less than that rant would have you think. But a lot of concepts are mutable between the world of sport and game - heck, poker is a sport, if ESPN is to be believed.
Actually, in my "History of Sport in the US Through 1900" class at UIowa - best class I've had so far, by the way - we looked at things like poker and bowling in colonial times. I guess it really depends on how inclusive or exclusive you want to make the term "sport," and how integral athletics is to your concept of sport.
If your concept of sport is heavily tied to things like structured competition and rules, then chess and poker have their place in sporting. If it's more tied to athleticism and athletic ability then gymnastics and figure skating have more of a place. You can even draw the boundaries wide enough to include both.
I'm probably going to be a bit tenative about this at first, but who knows. I'm sorta winging this.
WTF?! Baseball may be a game but it's all about the stats. With out stats, you'd only tell how players (teams) are doing by W/L record (oh, hey, another stat!) If the guy doesn't like the stuff, why even bother going on the blog at all. Seems like he's just an ass looking to cause trouble. I thoroughly enjoy the work you and others put into it compiling everything and offering up explanations on how it all works. it's great information you folks share and improves on everyones knowledge of the game.
It really boils down to what you consider a "stat" - after all, essentially won-loss records are a stat, after all.
More to the point, everyone in baseball uses statistics. Some use ERA and batting average; others use OPS and ERA+; still others use Batting Runs and xFIP. The author of Bad News Cubs admits to using OBP, OPS, ERA, IP... stats, stats, stats.
At its core, the arguement over sabermetrics isn't an arguement about the place of statistics in baseball; the two are inseperable. It's an arguement over conventional wisdom over fresh ideas. And it's an arguement that's never going to be resolved - some of the earliest sabermetric ideas are starting to calcify into conventional wisdom, and newer researchers are starting to challenge those orthodoxies.
And there is a real point to comparing baseball stat wonkery to D&D - sabermetrics really became popular because of Strat-O-Matic and fantasy baseball, both of which are hardcore simulationist games. I just absolutely refuse to be ashamed of it.
More to the point, it doesn't make the sabermetric critique any less correct, or any less prevalent and effective. When even knuckledraggers like that are dropping things like OBP and OPS into their analysis, well, the stat geeks have already won.
Colin --
You say something at the end of your last comment that I think sums it all up in my opinion. "The stat geeks have already won." I'm not sure there is a winner or loser despite what some people try to make this issue about. Baseball has been about stats since the very first game was played. Stat geeks kept their own private tables of how players on their teams did for years and when box scores became published for all teams, stat geeks kept all the stats themselves to keep a running total and compare to past seasons as well. Stat geeks, in my opinion, can't win, because they "won" over 100 years ago. Your point is well taken though when it comes to the people who consider this a competition of ideas.
Henry Chadwick was a revolutionary stat guy in the 1800s. All that is happening today really happened as early as the 1950s, but people like Mike over at Bad News Cubs aren't willing to learn about the new measures and finds it easier to dismiss them and make fun of them. Mike, admittedly, doesn't know the first damn thing about these stats that he so passionately despises.
It would be one thing if he said "I prefer the traditional stats because I understand them," but his lack of knowledge about these "new" metrics is perceived to be a threat against his knowledge of this game and he can't have that.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is that the stat geeks won this battle in the 1800s. The only thing different today from way back then is the new metrics. OBP was once a new metric and ridiculed by the traditionalists. Mike, and many others like him, unfortunately, aren't any different than those people who lived before him and will be around long after him. If Mike was around when OBP was an obscure stat, he too would have ridiculed it.
Henry Chadwick was actually rather obstinate and probably did as much to set back baseball statistics as he did to advance them. Probably the biggest mistakes in conventional baseball statistics - the Earned Run, the error and batting average as opposed to on base percentage - are all basically Chadwick's fault.
The use of on-base percentage actually predates the last Cubs World Series, if I recall correctly - I'm away from home right now and don't have my books handy. It was strident campaigning by Chadwick, who as Spalding's in-house statistician was able to control such things, kept OBP from being used until its resurgance in the 50s.
Chadwick, still, changed how stats were viewed. he may have prohibited certain stats from being used more frequently that have more value and certainly, based on some of his comments, would be considered a dumbass by today's standards. Wasn't it Chadwick whose box score totaled the amount of outs that a player made? If that's right, and it may not be because like you, i don't have anything at my disposal at the moment, but that's the precursor to OBP. It just wasn't called that.
Conventional wisdom at the time was that a good player was one who was good defensively, and he argued that as well, but he kept track of the number of outs made. maybe I'm thinking of someone else though.
Actually, now that I think about it, I probably am. Who did the first box score that included the stats hands lost and aces? outs and runs scored?
Hands lost is, essentially, the first reference to evaluating players based on the number of outs they make or the number of times they reach base safely.
I think my rambling in my initial comment may have distorted what I was really trying to say though. I'm not telling you anything you didn't know, but stats have been as important to the game of baseball as they are today since it began. The only thing that has changed are the metrics we use. Today's sabermtric stats will, as you point out, become traditional stats in a couple of generations, if not before.
Teams are already heavily investing money into sabermetric research, which is something that didn't that often a generation ago. These people who bash sabermetric stats are doing so, ironically, in complete ignorance of just how often they are used and by whom they are used (those who are making the decisions we often discuss online). They are utilizing similar metrics that Mike is making fun of and referring to people who use them as Dungeons and Dragons geeks. Every baseball organization, even the Cubs, are Dungeons and Dragons geeks and have been for some time. Statistical research by organizations is not new.
I think my rambling in my initial comment may have distorted what I was really trying to say though. I'm not telling you anything you didn't know, but stats have been as important to the game of baseball as they are today since it began. The only thing that has changed are the metrics we use. Today's sabermtric stats will, as you point out, become traditional stats in a couple of generations, if not before.
Teams are already heavily investing money into sabermetric research, which is something that didn't that often a generation ago. These people who bash sabermetric stats are doing so, ironically, in complete ignorance of just how often they are used and by whom they are used (those who are making the decisions we often discuss online). They are utilizing similar metrics that Mike is making fun of and referring to people who use them as Dungeons and Dragons geeks. Every baseball organization, even the Cubs, are Dungeons and Dragons geeks and have been for some time. Statistical research by organizations is not new.
Maddog,
You're such a fucking idiot. Don't try and misrepresent what I say and what I believe in. You're only good at being a fake, lying hick.
My entire childhood, if my favorite Cub was 1-3 with a walk, I considered him 2-4. I was always OBP oriented so don't even go there.
Furthermore, don't ever for one fucking second try and claim some sort of bullshit that I don't understand these complex stats. When I was in 8th grade, I had to go to high school for Geometry and take a bus back to junior high. By the time I finished high school, I had completed multi-variable calculus and linear algebra, and then did so well on the AP tests... that I didn't even need to take any further math to fulfill my liberal arts BA.
Your dumb fucking ass couldn't solve a fucking sudoku puzzle. You couldn't calculate derivatives if your hick fucking life depended on it.
If you need to talk shit and lie like the drug addict you are, come do it at my site you pussy. Coward.
If you're going to criticize someone, at least do it for what they stand for. You know damn well I think that WARP3, Win Shares, and babip are entirely fucking useless. I believe talking about replacement level players that don't exist is complete fiction. So, if you're going to talk shit, do it accurately... and at your site or mine you rube coward.
Will these stupid fucking stats find their way into the media some day? They might. Does that mean anything beyond that it might sell advertising targeted at fantasy fans? No.
Lou Piniella and Jim Leland don't look at that bullshit. If they watch two players of the same position play... and look at some of their basic stats, they know who the better player is. They don't need to play Dungeons & Fucking Dragons like you do.
The team that wins the world series has had a healthy rotation, excellent defense (especially up the middle), a solid leadoff man, a nice combo of lefties and righties, some very strong guys at the back of the pen, and a better than average plate approach throughout their own lineup.
This will never change no matter how much you play your Dungeons and Fucking Dragons. You will never be able to isolate who those players are. The best you can do with your feeble hick existence is...
"Other guys invented this WARP3 shit, not me. I buy it hook, line, and sinker. Since we need a third basemen, here are the available players in order of WARP3:
1. WARP3 5.4
2. WARP3 4.7
3. WARP3 4.3
etc."
That's the only fucking insight you have and it's not even yours.
I learned at an early age, as did most people, that when someone brags about something, they're really covering up a weakness. Your constant need to state your educational achievements, particularly in math, is quite obviously a perceived weakness. You lack the ability to argue your opinions in a rational and decent manner. You resort to personal attacks to cover up your weakness -- make you feel better about yourself when you lack the overall confidence to support your arguments with details.
This has happened with you on 3 Cubs blogs that I am aware of. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, considers you an intelligent man when it comes to baseball. That's not a personal attack as most people aren't intelligent about baseball, myself included. You're incapable of admitting your weaknesses and hide them by creating stories to tell about how glorious your life really is.
Nobody envies you. There's no reason to pat yourself on the back. This isn't a competition to most people. Competing ideas are sometimes neither right nor wrong, but you are unable to see the difference in your black and white world. There's only one correct answer in the online world in which you live.
Most people talk online because they have a desire to gain knowledge about areas they are often times already knowledgeable about. There's another way to watch and understand this game that you don't understand and therefore it's all a bunch of crap. You'd rather defend the game you grew up watching and playing than try to grasp or understand something that seems foreign to you. You'd rather not discuss the legitimacy of such metrics and prefer to immediately dismiss them all in favor of other sabermetric stats you apparently didn't realize were created by statheads.
At the end of the day, you've thrown about a lot of personal attacks online and haven't learned a thing. You've becomes the laughingstock of the Cubs blogosphere (The Cub Reporter still laughs at you for crying out loud!) and yet it's you, somehow, that is right while everyone else is wrong. That's quite an achievement, Mike. It's not common you'll see the same person banned and made fun of at several different sites. In fact, I believe you're the only one I'm aware of.
Congratulations! I'm sure your mother and father are proud of their intelligently superior child who is mocked and made fun of by nearly everyone and whom nearly everyone passionately dislikes. Impressive.
Maddog,
You're such a fucking idiot. Stick to cow-tipping... as your argumentative and reasoning skills are shit.
When I point out how good I was at math as a kid, I'm not showing off. Fuck if being good at math has brought me anything in life. I bring up math in response to this stupid fucking idea in your head that I somehow don't understand the complex sabermetric stats... as if it's beyond my mental faculties to comprehend them. Give me a fucking break. Take the point, okay dumbfuck?
I don't need your excessive and unnecessary stats. Get that through your fucking head. I can tell you the better of two players without WARP3. Give me their basic stats and let me watch them and I'll tell you who will help you win more games.
You on the contrary, trust blindly in this WARP3 bullshit and have no faith in yourself to know the better player. That's where we differ. Your WARP3 bullshit tells you Ryan Theriot sucks. Everyone inside the game understands how much guys like him help you win games.
As I said before, you wouldn't know the better of two players anymore than you'd know the difference between a Zima and bottle of '88 Dom... because you're a stupid fucking hick.
Next, I cannot believe you of all motherfuckers on earth wrote this????:
'I'm sure your mother and father are proud (blah blah blah)...'
You actually wrote this? Remember when I confronted you on the fact that you left about 100 hate comments at my site? Christ, you even went one comment at a time 'You' 'Are' 'A' 'Cock' 'Sucker'... 5 different comments... like a fucking five year old.
I asked you how you would feel if your wife saw your behavior. You're such a paranoid drug addict that you actually interpreted that to mean I had any interest in contacting your wife. God, you dumbfuck... like I'd ever call any fucking blogger's anyone. Meanwhile, I feel way to sorry for your wife to ever want to talk to her. It would be too depressing talking to the wife of a man who spends ever waking minute of his godforsaken existence at a fucking baseball blog hanging out with racist college kids in a herd.
And now here you are bringing up my parents? Are you serious? I'm not paranoid like your dumb fucking ass... and I know you won't be contacting mine. But god are you a hypocritical, worthless hick.
If you have something to say to me, say it at your blog or mine... you pussy. You fear debate with me because you always lose. Like when I got you to admit that some relief pitchers can't handle the ninth as opposed to the eighth... but you somehow tried to act like hitters are a different species of human. Your dumb fucking ass says lineup construction doesn't matter, but cry a fucking river when you don't like Lou's.
Cub readers learn from me how significant a leadoff man is to an offense... how crucial defense up the middle is, especially at catcher... how important it is to have reliable guys in your rotation who go 200 innings... how imperative it is that relievers throw strikes even if they're right over broadway... etc. It goes on and on.
I think from you I've learned one fucking thing... that Z's better on short rest. That's the only thing you've brought to the table in 5 years. Your one shining moment. Dumbfuck.
The whole second half of the season... I didn't even mention you or your stupid blog... whereas the subject every fucking day at your blog was me. Everyday, me. Your fucking opinions are based on being contrary to mine, (praising the Kendall acquisition as one of Hendry's finest), as you have no original thinking of your own.
And now you try and pretend I write nothing but shit about you. Christ, it's all you fucking people did for eons when I had moved on. I'm not even writing about you... but rather statheads in general. I use you symbolically because you run the blog that embodies, "Dumb Hicks Talking Shit". Fuck, I even got you guys to title your blog that way.
This offseason, out of boredom, I've come to enjoy talking truthful, mad shit... about what idiots you and your like are. It's fucking fun and I've got quite a number of readers enjoying it.
If you have a fucking problem with me, come to me with it... instead of acting like the gossiping little bitch that you are.
You will continue to read every single word that I write while I never read a single fucking article of yours. That's the proof, you little bitch... of who's bringing more to the table. You can try and pretend otherwise in front of the audience, but you and I know the truth. You read every fucking word of mine and hate that I know it.
While you may not need the stats, you sure do spend a lot of time and angry words expressing your dislike for them. To the best of my knowledge, no human being on earth has written as many angry words about those stats as you have. If you don't need them, you presumably don't care about them. If you don't care about them, why waste so much time thinking about them?
Most sane people who dislike sabermetrics, don't waste a minute talking about it. You, on the other hand, can't stop talking about them. It's somewhat funny watching you get so riled up about what you don't need, what you don't care about, and what you don't think has any value.
We both know your true level of education, Hawk. I imagine anyone else who has read your writing knows it very well also. Your numerous attempts to glamorize your intelligence is seen as only an attempt to cover up a known weakness. In this case, that weakness is your ability to argue rationally, debate in a civil manner that allows for the exchange of ideas, and your overall understanding of this game using methods you aren't familiar with.
You're not fooling anyone.
Maddog,
To the contrary, I haven't spent 1/1,000,000 the amount of time on baseball blogging that you have. I'm not within light years of it.
Since you brought up family... clearly your wife isn't bringing anything to the table to divert your attention. And meanwhile, poor thing... god knows what her happy hour talks are like with colleagues, "It's awful... he sits at home on the computer all day talking about baseball. Every single day."
And yes, it's a lot of fun watching me express myself eloquently and emotionally. Everyone enjoys it and that's why they keep reading... including the unhappy sorts like yourself.
And there you are with the word 'sane' again. Maddog, you're a fucking drug addict who neglects the people in your 'real life'. You're a drug addict who spends all day on your computer. You're nowhere close to being in a position to measure sanity.
Buddy, I can argue with more couth and etiquette than you can possibly fathom. I can run circles around your dumb hick ass and with 10 times the charm. But, your clan has no idea how to behave. It's pretty much 'agree or get ridiculed'. So, I just mock the shit out of you guys and talk shit back. It's fun.
You always find yourself apologizing because you're stupid and rude. I don't need to apologize because I never fuck with anyone who hasn't fucked with me first.
Just go and get high and disappear... leave everyone alone... and that way you'll have less apologizing to do. Oh wait, that is what you do... disappear... only you're online.
Is it your grand touche against me, that I'm glamorizing my intelligence, thus hiding a weakness? Wow, eureka.
Hardly. I'm reciting a lot of conventional baseball wisdom that many have known before me... and I simply put some of my own twists on it. The real athletes and fans understand baseball and it isn't so deep. That's what makes you statheads such utter morons. You guys think you've reinvented the wheel when you're really wasting your time with poor player evaluation.
How are you going to feel after spending 8 something years of your life that ends up being completely disproved. What are you going to do when the significance of defense is properly quantified... apologize to me? What are you going to do when the significance of leadoff men and defense up the middle becomes quantified? All the years wasted... what are you going to do?
The only weakness here on my part is spending any time at all on this shit. But god knows it's a lifetime less than you do. Druggy, family-neglecting loser.
You know, for the first time... I just noticed something so deliriously funny... how your family name is a perfect rhyme for 'Hick'.
Keep reading hick... you love my work.
Maddog, I think The Hawk is right. He has convinced me with the veracity and logic of his comments. I now hate stats more than I hate Hitler.
wow, mike, you are a real asshole. I bet you'd get killed if you ever talked like that to anybody in real life. typical internet loser.
Anonymous,
It's the dumb hicks at ACB who act like obnoxious little bitches online when they wouldn't dare act otherwise in person. I never say anything online I wouldn't in person.
If you don't know the history of a matter, you shouldn't judge. But instead, you just join the herd in group hate randomly and take shit out of context.
Typical Internet Loser.
You, like the others... will continue to read every word I write.
colin - i've enjoyed reading your blog and your comments at acb so i want to warn you, if you haven't already figured it out, that mike/thehawk is a complete dumbass that everyone hates in cubdom. and unless you want this to go on at your blog forever you need to get rid of the guy.
you can scan the archives at at least four cubs blogs to see what i mean. i would say you can just ignore him but he is relentless in his attacks and it makes it almost impossible not to respond, which of course spurs him on.
i'm sure after reading my comment he'll respond with 10 paragraphs on how useless i am. so wait for it....wait for it.....
Colin, i like your blog, you've got good stuff here. kudos.
However, I am posting because I totally disagree with dccubfan about the thehawk. No warning is needed, these are wanted advances. That is one hilarious cub fan, you should collect the maddog/thehawk exchanges and put a book together.
i would buy it. hilarious. just look at this gold:
To the contrary, I haven't spent 1/1,000,000 the amount of time on baseball blogging that you have. I'm not within light years of it.
I mean really, who writes .001% as a fraction? and light years? is this guy a star trek geek or what? nobody talks in light years. perhaps thehawk is a bot? is that possible? do they make angry bots?
And this:
It's not common you'll see the same person banned and made fun of at several different sites. In fact, I believe you're the only one I'm aware of.
has thehawk has made internets history as the stupidest person on the whole world wide web? is that what maddog is saying?
priceless. i want more. keep going!
as barbie says, math is hard.
Mike / theHawk,
You are a hateful person who says hateful things. I need a tissue.
Sincerely,
KerrysotherWife aka KOW
At some point in that beautiful rant, The Hawk had this to say:
"And yes, it's a lot of fun watching me express myself eloquently and emotionally. Everyone enjoys it and that's why they keep reading"
Is this anybody's idea of eloquent?
This from his page:
"Warp3. These wanna-be scientists… these cow-tipping, beer from the can, Slipknot disciples… these fucking idiots…"
Oh my God! How eloquent! How moving! I swear when I first read that sentence, I almost hesitated to read on in fear that the beauty of those words eminating from my moniter might cause me blow my load then subsequently lose my eyesight permanently.
The Hawk's true genius will only be understood years after he is gone. Like so many other brilliant people, they are not appreciated until it's too late.
DC,
How could I disappoint one of my most devoted readers?
First of all, Colin came to my site, not the other way around. As a matter of fact, he invited me to visit the thread where I found Maddog talking more shit about me. You know, Maddog... the guy who asked me to contribute to his site twice... but then chased me away both times? Queen.
And then he follows me to my site and anywhere else? I picture him sitting at home, thinking about me while listening to U2's "With Or Without You". I own that clown. He reads every single thing I write. He's obsessed, like you.
The sad thing is... you and your lot... simply cannot argue baseball with me. You guys simply conform to whatever WARP3 says as gospel. You guys haven't the faintest idea which players will help you win or not. You have no idea what a team is. You never challenge my ideas of a good team:
Legit leadoff man
Solid D up the middle
Relievers who throw strikes regardless of consequence.
At least three guys in your rotation who offer more health than flash
Balance of righty/lefty
It goes on and on.
You guys think David Eckstein's and Ryan Theriot's are awful players even though they're winners. While those guys win championships, you guys play Dungeons and Fucking Dragons with stats in fantasy land. Dorks.
No need to warn Colin as I couldn't care less to comment here. But, the guy invited me... and this is by far the best thread this site will ever see.
Jacob,
You've got it backwards who the star trek geeks are. I don't sit around making myriad calculations that accomplish nothing.
Your math skills, however, leave something to be desired. You'd be a perfect fit at Maddog's site, ACB. You're missing a 0 in your %.
If you think this thread is entertaining, head over to 1060west.net and start from July 1. I mocked the stat morons by calling myself 'technostats'. When you read the debate between myself and a certain dumbfuck named Faggous Maximus, you'll die laughing. Fuck, if you think this thread is entertaining... you'll want to nominate the other one for a fucking Pulitzer.
At my site, you learn the most about baseball, by 'light years' you dumbfuck, along with getting the most entertaining read in Cubbie Land.
You'll be one of my most loyal readers. Hopefully, you won't be like the ACB crowd. They're the women who say they hate Howard Stern, but listen to him more than anyone. These blogs should be fun... and god knows I have my fun. These dorks pore over useless statistical bullshit all day and cry that Theriot and Roberts are the worst baseball players on earth. These idiots couldn't beat a bunch of cows they tipped over in a game of fucking whiffle ball.
Eloquence Personified:
"Warp3. These wanna-be scientists… these cow-tipping, beer from the can, Slipknot disciples… these fucking idiots…"
Some of my finest work. Thanks for reminding me, Anonymous.
I'm not sure when name calling and swearing became eloquent. I must have missed that. Anger management might help.
Yeah... that's not really what I was trying to point out with that quote... But whatever floats your boat Hawk.
And sure YOU think you came out on top in those arguments at 1060 last summer, but I'd like to see whateve EVERYONE ELSE there thought. In fact, I wouldn't even hesitate to que up those archives. I was around for most of it-- you got embarrased on a daily basis there.
And I like how you call that shit "eloquence personified"
I mean, read it over. IT ISN'T EVEN A SENTENCE.
If that's some of your finest work, then I don't even wanna see the rest.
Fuckin retard.
T.S. Eliot and E. E. Cummings didn't write sentences and they were plenty eloquent. God, you unsophisticated rubes are really something.
Yes, Anonymous, I'm the world's biggest idiot for noting the Cubs played their best with Koyie Hill as catcher, Theriot's a good ball player, clutch hitting exists, and the Kendall deal was awful.
Unbelievable, the amount of vitriol that ensued over these subjects. It's just shows how small and pathetic you hicks are.
That's why I only write towards you guys in the language you deserve. God knows if we engaged in a vocabulary and grammar contest you'd come out on the short end.
OMG you just compared your blog to TS Eliot!
The Kendall deal was only awful in the sense that they should've just handed the job to Soto. The argument that taking the job from Hill is what made the deal a failure is simply asinine.
Look Hawk-- if your so mathematically gifted, and so statistically enlightened, explain to me how you overlook perhaps THE most simple concept in statistics:
CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!
I mean, you CANNOT honestly believe that the cubs went on a nice run of 16 out of 22 games or whatever BECAUSE SOME CATCHER WHO HIT LIKE .150 GOT A FEW STARTS. I mean seriously, that has to be the most outrageous argument I have ever heard in my life. Seriously, did you think the Cubs were capable of continuing winning% clip of like.700? After I post this, I will not even justify any pathetic comeback you might have to it with a so much as a single word because anyone with half a brain understands the concept that one lousy player getting some PT doesn't turn around an entire season.
Even though I am a huge Cubs fan, a small part of me wishes we had just stuck with Hill behind the plate so that when we INVARIABLY would have come down to earth REGARDLESS of who was catching, you would be sitting there with your thumb in your ass moving the goal posts trying to explain how it happened. Even if we missed the playoffs, picturing you slamming on the keyboard punching in some lame-ass sentence fragments attempting to explain why the Cubs mysteriously had reverted to playing .500 ball (maybe even lower had the Cubs continued to run out a catcher everyday who was struggling to reach the Mendoza line).
And seriously Hawk-- comparing your 3 grade peice of shit writing to T.S. Eliot? That might be the funniest thing I have ever heard in my life. I mean honestly, reading your shit is like when Ralphie from A Christmas Story reads his theme on "What I Want for Christmas"
"I want a Red Ranger Rifle (or whatever the fuck it was called) with a this thing that tells time on it!"
Is that Bad News Cubs blog The Hawk's site? Anyone that wants to argue with someone like that has it coming to them. Couldn't you guys find a site more worthy of complaining about? 7-year olds write more intelligently than that site is written.
I guess people will waste their time any old way. Not me. I'll sooner shove needles into my eyes than read that ungodly garbage again.
Oog, you self-hating, obsequious-to-racist-hicks east coast member of the tribe,
1. Person A tells person B that he can't be eloquent because he's not writing sentences, more like prose with many "...'s".
2. Person B responds that poetry and prose at large can be plenty eloquent and is without conventional sentence structure. He states this by naming two famous poets.
3. Dumbfuck Oog, who isn't a very good athlete, interprets Person B to mean that he's making a direct comparison between himself and the poets... who are merely examples in making a larger point.
Thank god I have my own blog now. It's the only way. The reading comprehension level of baseball blog people out there is borderline illiterate. I swear, you people only read what you want to read with absolutely no sense for objective reality. And yet, you guys think you're fucking scientists with this ZORP shit. Makes me laugh.
And for the record Oog, you dumbfuck, I'll take this:
"Warp3. These wanna-be scientists… these cow-tipping, beer from the can, Slipknot disciples… these fucking idiots…"
over this:
"HE broad-backed hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.
Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock"
any day. 'Four Quartets' is another story.
But, you're probably one of these quasi-intellectuals who lies and claims 'Citizen Kane' as a favorite movie while scoffing at the great work of John Hughes... when both are great.
You also do bare a likeness to the hippopotamus.
Anonymous,
How many of you are there? And this time, clearly one of you is either Jack or Dylan so why the hiding?
It would seem that it's as difficult for you dumbfucks to accept the following idea:
2007 Cubs - Best record in baseball from June 3rd until Kendall acquisition, July 17th. When Koyie Hill starts, Cubs go 14-4.
... as it was for people to accept that the earth goes 'round the sun. I swear to fucking god. Why is it such a mental leap for you people to come to grips with the idea? (Now Oog will think I'm comparing myself to Copernicus and Galileo because he's an idiot.)
It is absolute proof that the stat heads aren't good at what they're doing when they consider it impossible that a team switching from an average bat/godawful glove catcher... to a lousy bat/solid glove catcher could make such a difference in the win/loss column.
Z to good gloves:
OPS against - .523 in 9 starts to K. Hill
OPS against - .393 in 2 starts to G. Soto
OPS against - .379 in 1 start to R. Bowen
Z to bleh:
OPS against - .723 in 9 starts to J. Kendall
OPS against - .965 in 7 starts to M. Barrett
OPS against - .773 to aging/ailing Henry Blanco
But no, these stats don't count to statheads because Bill James hasn't said so.
The Padres had a stellar record in all games started by catchers other than Michael Barrett... and a losing record with with him.
But to your dumb fucking ass that's all correlation, not causation... as if a catcher who can't catch a thing isn't deflating to pitchers and the defense as a whole. Fuck, right after we traded Barrett, Michael Wuertz said something like, "It's nice to be able to throw the ball into the dirt again, knowing the catcher can stop it."
It's so absolutely pathetic that you people don't think going from Barrett to a solid catcher will have an enormous positive effect on the pitching and defense.
The D-Backs took off when they went with solid defensive catcher Chris Snyder over Johnny Estrada last year.
Some of my critics say I promote ideals that we all knew since little league. To some extent, there's truth in that. A lot of it's taught for a reason. The fact that stat heads, because of stupid shit like VORP and win shares, think a catcher's defensive contribution is borderline irrelevant.... is just pathetic.
You never ever want a lousy defensive catcher unless the guy hits like Barry Bonds... which has only happened once... Mike Piazza.
Defense at catcher isn't sexy, like the O-Line in football, but it's equally as important.
You people are so un-fucking-believably stupid for not understanding this most basic baseball premise. Just look what happened to us when we reverted to lousy with the Kendall acquisition.
Somehow I correlated all fucking year you stupid motherfucker. It's more than you, Maddog, GM, or anyone can say. Though, in April and May, it was only Maddog, ShawnDGoldman, and myself who saw better times ahead for the Cubs.
Amazing. You know, CCD, did a nice job summarizing last summer today. He's a bit less of a dumbfuck than most of you and at worst, plays enabler to some of the stat freaks. But, often the enabler's worse than the antagonist... like his dumb fucking ass saying that I go around saying how smart I am. Has never happened once. I've only stated that I was a gifted math student as a child to refute Maddog's pathetic notion that I somehow can't comprehend stupid fucking WARP3. To those who fail at reading comprehension, that gets turned into, "Look how smart I am!"... just like these idiots would say "Koyie Hill for MVP!"
What's sad is that today, he failed to mention the most contentious subject... Koyie Fucking Hill. The thing that sent all you stat heads into hysterics.
There were only two people out there who knew the truth. J Idaho acknowledged it at 1060... and JBrokaw knows it's true. Hell, CCD probably thought so but was worried what his buddies would think who were busy mocking me. Fuck, Barry Rozner agreed with me. But you dumbfucks always think you know better than everyone inside and around the game.
You do realize, Koyie's got a minor league deal with us again this year... and I, for one, am glad he'll be in camp. If Soto's a bust or Henry has more health problems, we've got a great answer down on the farm.
And Anonymous, one last thing... when I 'correlate' yet again this year... better than any of you stupid fucking stat heads... what are you going to say?
OMG HAWK! BARRY ROZNER AGREED WITH YOU!
That's it... I'm sold man. If Barry Rozner says it's the truth, then it MUST be.
Oh wait I forgot-- most beat writers are about as credible as my 8 year-old spanish speaking girl cousin.
Seriously Hawk? Because Barry Rozner agreed with you it's game set match?
What I don't understand Hawk, is that no one as ever disagreed with you about just how bad of a catcher Barrett was. I'm pretty sure everybody was glad to see him go. But just like Maddog was saying, unless someone completely 100% agrees with you, you consider them totally wrong and incompetent.
The bottom line Hawk, is that you simply jump to conclsions that you WANT to be correct. The fact of the matter is--- and I know this is going to get you worked the fuck up but it's the truth---
The sample size of games that Hill caught for our staff is just too small to make any serious conclusions. Period. I'm not denying that he's a good defensive catcher. I mean shit, he has to be considering he's been a professional baseball player for all these years despite the fact there are kids playing stickball in the ghetto of New York who could probably hit professional pitching better than him.
The kicker in this whole issue is that Jason Kendall is by all accounts pretty good at handling a pitching staff. Everyone who has ever played with him will attest to that. Go back and look at the quotes from the Oakland A's from when the Kendall deal was made. All the pitchers had nothing but good things to say about him. He might struggle like hell to hold baserunenrs, he is undoubtedly as good-- and in fact probably better-- than Koyie Hill at recieving/calling a game/managing a staff. So this mysterious dropoff the Cubs experienced that you think is 100% accountable to the fact that the Cubs didn't run out a fucking scrub of a catcher is totally wrong. Because there really wasn't any dropoff in ability between the catchers. Shit, it was probably an upgrade. You just don't want to believe it so that you can keep running with your original (yet incorrect) opinion.
But despite your claims to the contrary, you lack the statistical savvy to realize that things like sample size matter. And that correlation does not imply causation.
Guess they forgot to teach you that shit in Calculus 7 that you took when you were 10 years old Hawk.
Jack,
You're a fucking idiot...
This is where dumbfuck statheads suffer from not 'watching' the games... not 'seeing' the games. It's the opposite of statheads who criticize oldschool scouts who watch all the games but don't consider stats.
Anyone who watched Kendall saw a ton of passed balls. Loads of them. Clearly you weren't watching so there's no point discussing it. I wish I had a dollar for every fucking passed ball Kendall let by.
Passed balls lose games... they lose loads of games... more than you dumbfucks can quantify. If one of you wants to be the next Voros McCracken you ought to listen to me and quantify my insights. Then, you could take all the credit.
Yes, Kendall is a decent backstop... when he's had time with a staff. You never answered the question from long ago... name one fucking successful team in baseball history that acquired a catcher midseason and did jack shit? How many times have I said this? Is your memory as faulty as your reading comprehension?
None of you statheads ever answered it... even though I have the answer for you. You're scared to answer it because all the sudden The Hawk has one hell of a point.
Look what happened to the DePodesta team that shipped LoDuca out midseason. Look at what happened to the Pads when Barrett started. Fuck, look at their fucking final game of last season! It still kills me. Funniest fucking thing I've ever seen in baseball.
You can't answer the fucking question. And this has gotten old. This thread is over. Come to my blog if you want to talk shit.
Hawk--
Taking a look at teams who have accomplished anything after acquiring a catcher mid-season isn't even really relavent. I mean let's face it-- it's not like the Cubs were a World Series caliber club. The fact is, they went from worst to first in the central in one year. Obviously if that feat were ever a possibility, the NL Central would be the place to do it. But still, that's a pretty serious accomplishment. My point is, the Cubs didn't thwart any championship aspirations by acquiring a veteran catcher midseason.
"Passed balls lose games... they lose loads of games..."
Well, no shit Hawk. It's not like your the first person ever to reach this conclusion. See, we're not in disagreement over the importance of defense at the catcher position. My argument is simply that Koyie Hill is not the reason the Cubs had a hot streak in the middle of the summer. Period. There simply is not one scenario that exists where one player can recieve credit for a mediocre team like last year's Cubs getting hot and winning a few games.
And I'm sorry Hawk, but I will never come over to your blog to discuss anything. But using this thread to advertise for your own shitty blog is funny at least. Besides, I don't want my comments to get lost in the tens of them that your recieve every month.
"Is that Bad News Cubs blog The Hawk's site? Anyone that wants to argue with someone like that has it coming to them. Couldn't you guys find a site more worthy of complaining about? 7-year olds write more intelligently than that site is written.
I guess people will waste their time any old way. Not me. I'll sooner shove needles into my eyes than read that ungodly garbage again."
Not sure who wrote that, but keep that in mind Hawk. That's how people think about you and your shit ass blog.
The Hawk writes like TS Elliot and EE Cummings while producing the caliber of work that Voros McCracken does.
This is good stuff.
Uh... "passed balls" are awarded by the offical scorer. So, yeah, passed balls is a stat. You can look at it here. Yay for knowing things!
Colin,
Since this is your blog and you addressed me here at the end... here's one more comment to say thank you.
I absolutely love the stats in your link. They prove everything I said last summer.
It's really quite amazing how our team winning % so closely correlates with whomever was catching and their 'WP+PB/G' numbers.
We won the most games with Koyie Hill, Geovany Soto, and Rob Bowen, whose numbers are .150, .150, and .000 respectively. Furthermore, all three threw out would-be base stealers at rates of 23%, 29%, and 20%.
On the flip side, we did most of our losing with:
Michael Barrett - .440 - 6%
Jason Kendall - .440 - 4%
Henry Blanco - .660 - 20%
This is called CAUSATION ladies and dumb hicks. But you dumbfucks want Barrett and Kendall for their bats. Idiots.
I've long maintained that the most important qualities in a catcher are twofold:
1. Getting the most out of the pitching staff.
2. Ability to block pitches in the dirt or wild in general.
Because of dumbfuck Maddog, there's this notion out there that I hate stats, which I don't. I absolutely LOVE this stat. It's far more useful than any ZORP 2.2 will ever be.
One of the best parts about this stat is how it completely disproves that rodent Ryno's dumbfuck notion that Jason Varitek is a lousy catcher. I don't know where the fuck that guy ever got that idea. He's carried one of the lowest 'WP+PB/G' rates in baseball. He's an excellent catcher.
The team that wins the world series always has an excellent defensive catcher. The dumbfuck statheads think a catcher's role is to control the running game and hit. In reality, the primary function is to get the most out of the pitching staff and to block all pitches.
Completely validated with this stat... everything from last year... 100% validated. I rest my case, your honor... and look forward to your verdict in my favor.
Oh, and Anonymous queen with the Voros comment... your goddamn right this is a Voros McCracken moment. All the fucking guy did is discover a pitcher's overall worth in relation to what, home runs, walks, and K's, right?
I don't see any stat heads pointing to a team's success in relation to its catcher's 'WP+PB/G'. But someday we will... and if one of you had a brain... you'd do the work and take credit for my observation. But you're not a bunch of Voros McCracken's... you're a bunch of dumb hicks.
Anyway, once again... a sincere thanks Colin as that's one of the better stats I've ever seen in baseball. Just cruise through the history and see the numbers for the world series catchers. CS% is a little less important... and it's also important to note catcher's ERA.
Yep. It will be correlated at some point. Right now. The correlation between WP+PB/G and ERA is 0.044. A normal person would look at this and say that of course there is no correlation. It doesn't even take into account the quality of the pitching staff, but since you said this is a great stat that is indicative of winning, I assume that ERA is at least a decent stat to use to predict winning, right? You've definitely been validated all right. Everyone else's opinion of you is dead-on accurate. The only one around whose opinion of you is incorrect is you. You should be proud.
All right,
Colin, I thank you once again for this stat. It's a winner.
This time, I am 100% through with this thread and parting with:
Anonymous, you stupid motherfucker. Last year, the Cubs pitching staff was a constant outside of the glorious emergence of Carlos Marmol. With the pitchers being a constant, healthy for the most part, the variable was catcher.
Don't pretend you know the first thing about science because you don't. And don't think you're fooling me by grabbing the number .044 out of the thin air, you worthless twat.
Of course 'WP+PB/G' as a whole doesn't correlate 100% with ERA and win/loss %. Duh. If you were capable of comprehending my previous post, you'd have actually noticed two of several reasons why at the end.
The entire team played much better ball when we had a good catcher than when we didn't. It's a fact... and it correlates perfectly because there's causation. That will never change and it's written in stone in Colin's link above.
There will be a full posting on my blog on this subject to follow... and your stupid, worthless self will read it... as you always do, jhawk. You're the sorriest motherfucker who's ever walked the planet... the most useless form of life, worthy of nothing... and make no mistake about it... you will read every single word on baseball that I ever write you piece of shit.
Nope. You said, and I quote, "It's really quite amazing how our team winning % so closely correlates with whomever was catching and their 'WP+PB/G' numbers."
Your words. The 0.044 r-squared proves your words wrong.
I'm not the one who said what you did. You did. All I did was check to see if you were right and to no surprise at all, you weren't. As usual, nothing but weak opinions without any support to back them up at all.
We can do this all day and I'll prove you wrong, wrong, wrong. It won't even take me very long to do it. Your arguments are so weak and archaic that nearly everything you say can be torn down in seconds. That's the beauty of it.
The only people reading your every word are people who want to laugh for awhile. They can get your opinions, the same exact ones, by listening to Joe Morgan, Joe Buck, Tim McCarver and Phil Rogers.
God! Just un- BELIEVABLY - fucking stupid!!!!
How fucking dumb are you, Jack? 21 year old fucking dildo maven.
For the 2007 Cubs, yes... our fortunes correlated very well to our catching dynamic. That was our biggest weakness at the start of the season and was yet again once we acquired Kendall. It wasn't the problem during the interval in between.
When you read this:
"It's really quite amazing how OUR team winning % so closely correlates with whomever was catching and their 'WP+PB/G' numbers."
... do you completely miss the word OUR and decide I'm talking about every team on earth? Furthermore, how the fuck does team winning % mean the same thing as ERA? WINNING % IS NOT ERA YOU UNBELIEVEABLY STUPID, WORTHLESS MOTHERFUCKER. Are you really this stupid? It seems impossible.
OUR CATCHERS' WP+PB/G NUMBERS, WHEN THAT CATCHER WAS STARTING... CORRELATED TO WHETHER THE CUBS WON OR LOST THAT GAME EXTREMELY WELL YOU LOBOTOMIZED IMBECILE.
I mean, seriously, Jack... you are the single stupidest motherfucker I've ever come across online. You make Manny Trillo look like fucking Leonardo da Vinci.
After you read the new post at my blog, you'll realize what an absolute fucking idiot you are when it comes to catchers.
I'm 100% vindicated and validated.
Well somebody obviously was skipping class the day they discussed sample size in statistics class.
The most valuable player in baseball is the minority catcher who puts tape on his fingers so the pitcher can see the signs more clearly.
http://a931.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/51/m_2dfdc885ef356d9583106f00d10cd7f2.jpg
I agree. 100% vindicated and validated. If that even matters. Everyone else is right and you are still an idiot.
Hawk--
Jack here. Just so ya know, I haven't been commenting for the past like 2 days. My last one was like 10 or so up from the bottom. So whoever you were calling the stupidest motherfucker ever or something along those lines wasn't me.
The only reason I came in anonymous here is because I didn't want to rehash BS from this summer. I knew that the first thing I said under the name jack would make you flip out and disagree just for the sake of it. I just didn't wanna have the same thing happen at Colin's blog that happened at 1060. But I don't really wanna go there. Just thought you should know that whoever you've been trading comments with for the past like 8-10 or so wasn't me. But still feel free to disagree with everything I say.
and I'm actually only 19.
Well Jack,
It's nice to know that wasn't you. Fuck, I think even you're capable of distinguishing a team's record from the era statistic.
Your namesake in this thread must be the single dumbest human being who has ever walked the earth.
And Colin,
A larger sample size of the catcher dynamic is currently at my blog, though I know you've already read it.
7 of the last 8 catchers in the world series were top defensive catchers, period. The one exception, is one crafty motherfucker, A.J. Pierzynski. And he got great performances out of White Sox pitchers that year.
A larger sample size?
How about this sample size that included all catchers from 2004 to 2007 and since you're interested in correlating ERA and WP+PB/G, I did so just for you.
What do you know? No correlation at all (r-squared equal 0.040).
This sample size thing is a really tough thing for you to understand, isn't it?
Oh well. I think we've proven beyond all belief you've never tested out of any math at any level. For the sake of accuracy, I think that is very important to point out.
At this point, I can't help but chuckle.
I've written it as clearly as I can, including BOLD type that in 2007 the Cubs' winning % correlated with the catchers' WP+PB/G numbers...
and your dumb fucking ass continues to look at ERA. Unreal.
I mean, you are truly the stupidest motherfucker who has ever lived. When you read Cubs box scores in a game they won 3-1, you must see something like they lost 8-4 or something. You are the abominable idiot.
How many fucking times do you see the term 'winning %' and ignore it? How many fucking times?
Do you see this?:
"Winning %"
It's there. It's black type surrounded by white space.
The best part is you mention the correlation figure 3 times now... and yet it's changed from .044 to .040. You make the dumb bitches on Flavor of Love look like Albert Einstein.
"WP+PB/G" to winning % when they start. Say it jackass so you remember it. Write it down since your brain has no hard drive or ram.
"WP+PB/G" to winning % when they start
Got it? Try it again.
"WP+PB/G" to winning % when they start
Dumbfuck.
I'm glad for your sake that you've written anonymously. Heaven forbid anyone actually knows you.
Ok, so if WP+PB/G isn't correlated with run scoring, then... what, it's causing the team to score more runs?
It was you who tried to correlate that stat with ERA on your blog. Not I. Me? I'm just here to add a few pieces that prove beyond all reason that you're an idiot.
You correlated this stat with ERA. Have you not even read your site?
Besides, the value of this stat and how it affected the Cubs is only as good as its predictive value (see graph and no correlation at all!).
The correlation for 2007 catchers was 0.044. For 2004-2007 it was 0.040. You do realize you can get the correlation coefficient in a matter of a few seconds, right? It's as simple as querying the table on The Hardball Times and pasting the info in Excel and then creating a graph. Takes a minute.
You tested out of math? Uh-huh.
Oh yeah, of Kendall's 5 passed balls, do you know how many runs scored as a result?
2.
Yep. Lots of losses. Lots of them as a result of 2 runs scoring (of which he's only partially responsible for the run scoring). Kendall's 2 runs allowed easily cost the Cubs 7 wins. Easily!
"Oh yeah, of Kendall's 5 passed balls, do you know how many runs scored as a result?
2.
Yep. Lots of losses. Lots of them as a result of 2 runs scoring (of which he's only partially responsible for the run scoring). Kendall's 2 runs allowed easily cost the Cubs 7 wins. Easily!"
I think that's all she wrote on that one.
Sigh...
Just when I thought your stupidity had reached its nadir... you sink lower.
If you read my blog article, I never once mention any correlation between WP+PB/G and ERA. It's pretty clear that the point I'm making is... that winning teams have catchers with great WP+PB/G numbers. As a matter of fact, 7 of the last 8 world series teams features catchers at or near the top in WP+PB/G.
Now, be a good little stathead and run a correlation between WP+PB/G of 2007 Cubs catchers... and whether the team won or lost when that catcher started games.
Scared?
Last I checked, Sept 20... the Cubs were 30-13 when Koyie Hill, Geovany Soto, and Rob Bowen started. So, we already know what the correlation's going to look like, don't we?
You are the single dumbest motherfucker on the face of the fucking earth.
Colin, the thing that bothers statheads like you about me is...
Player A - Higher OPS, Fewer runs & RBI's
Player B - Lower OPS, More runs & RBI's
I'd take player B.
Player A - Lower ERA, better K/9, lower WHIP, fewer wins and innings.
Player B - Higher ERA, worse K/9, higher WHIP, more wins and innings.
I want player B.
It drives you statheads mental that I think this way... and that's why my teams win more games than yours.
You showed, in your charts, the two stats, side by side, as if they have value.
Besides, if you think that stat has much value in terms of wins and losses, then you would expect there to be some correlation between ERA and that stat.
There isn't.
The correlation on the Cubs isn't of any value either unless we can expect that to continue and in order to test that theory, one has to know whether there is a correlation and, well, you know what?
There isn't.
You can keep defending the garbage that comes out of your mouth and all that happens is that you make yourself look dumber and dumber each time you open it.
I've shown you there is no correlation between this stat and ERA. None at all. Unless you think ERA has no impact on wins and losses, which obviously you don't since you cherish the work a poor defensive catcher did with the 2005 White Sox (you've said in this thread that he kept their ERA down!). You clearly understand a lower ERA improves a team's chance of winning a ball game.
I've proven, with the numbers you have presented as "evidence" that there is no correlation.
Do you have any other Voros McCracken moments I can shoot down in a matter of 3 or 5 seconds? If so, bring the topic up and I'll prove you wrong in no time.
There's still hope for you yet.
Of course you would take Player B. Things like RBI opportunities and other team dependent stats were discussed after you tested out of math.
"It drives you statheads mental that I think this way... and that's why my teams win more games than yours."
You have a baseball team? Really? This is something you should discuss further. If we'd known you had a track record of success running a baseball franchise, surely we would have listened to you sooner. Was it the Braves? The Twins? The As? The Yankees?
...oh, right, nevermind. You don't have any teams. I have no idea what the sam hell you even think you're talking about.
First of all... thank god you finally wrote something relatively well in the comment written two above this one.
Christ, thank the fucking lord. At least now I know you have half a brain. This allows me to write to you as though you're at least some semblance of human.
However, you're still seriously lacking in brain power when it comes to winning baseball games.
The 2007 Cubs had two major weaknesses out of the gate that were causing us to lose games, the catcher position and the bullpen. Carlos Marmol, arguably the 2007 Cubs' MVP, improved the bullpen immeasurably upon his arrival. He was one key to turning the season around. The other was the demotion of Michael Barrett and his eventual trade. We subsequently became the best team in baseball for about a month until we acquired Jason Kendall, when the catcher position became faulty again.
I foresaw the entire thing step by step and it's all online as my enemies would surely validate.
Now, WP+PB/G does not have a correlation with winning % for every team. You can have a lousy team with one hell of a defensive catcher and they still won't do jack. (Although, it's unbelievable the effects Pudge Rodriguez has had on three clubs that were absolute garbage before his arrival.)
However, while there are exceptions to just about everything, a great majority of world series caliber teams will feature catchers with excellent WP+PB/G. It's not even close to a coincidence. I showed this at my blog yesterday. 7 of the last 8 were truly outstanding. And it isn't like A.J.'s a lousy defensive catcher... he's about average and I've always found him to be a good receiver who shows a good target. Plus, god knows, the White Sox probably don't advance without him. We can all recall two particular plays he was involved in. (Furthermore, I don't care to dwell on the one exception.)
So, while a solid catcher doesn't grant you a playoff team, a playoff team will not be in the playoffs without one... a great majority of the time. Chris Snyder, Yorvit Torrealba, Geovany Soto, Carlos Ruiz, Jason Varitek, Jorge Posada, and Victor Martinez are all solid catchers. The Halos decided to go with what, Mathis and Napoli over a Molina? We'll see how that turns out. But, if there's one man I trust with catchers, it's Mike Scioscia. If he sees something in Mathis, I believe him.
The 2007 Cubs had excellent numbers out of the gate... their run differential was one of the better ones in baseball even when they had a losing record. So, why were they losing? The stat heads couldn't put a finger on it.
I could.
Now, run the fucking numbers, wise guy. My point has consistently been that when we started our best defensive catchers, we won those fucking games. Whether it's 3-2 or 8-5, I don't give a fuck... we won. There's something to be said for a pitcher feeling he can throw in the dirt to a catcher... and the oufielders feeling that if they throw home, a guy might actually catch the ball and make a tag.
There is great value in studying this lesson. There's a significance in seeing a team prove how badly a good team can be inhibited by lousy catchers. But you're too stupid to know it because you think the goal of baseball is to have the most WARP3, not to win the fucking games.
The 2004 Cubs taught that any good team, even a power offense... absolutely must feature a quality leadoff man. That team also taught you that some guys can't pitch the 9th. LaTroy was great as a setup man until we forced him to close. You stat heads want to pretend the 9th inning is the same as any other when it comes to performance, but it isn't. It's inhuman to think that it is.
I know for an absolute fact that the Cubs suffered out of the gate due to the faulty bullpen and leaky catcher. The proof is that the combo of Marmol and Koyie Hill/Rob Bowen/Geovany Soto caused a complete 180 in the team's direction. As of Sept 20, our team was 30-13 when these guys started. That's a .698 winning % you worthless motherfucker.
Now, since you're such a good little stat head... and it takes 'a few seconds', why don't you run the correlation between our 2007 catchers' WP+PB/G numbers with the team record when each catcher started? You want to know why you won't? You're scared... and I'm right. You're a pussy... and I'm insightful.
Next, at my blog, I simply copied over the numbers from The Hardball Times... so don't look so far into ERA being next to WP+PB/G. Fuck if I designed their site. Colin's link is above. I didn't 'place them side by side as if they have value.' Looking at those two along with the CS%, you do get a sense of a catcher's overall value. I'd actually rank all three in the same order... WP+PB/G, catcher's era, and caught stealing %. Believe it or not, as much as I hated the Kendall trade, I wasn't as bothered as others at how the guy offered a free stolen base to every opposing baserunner. I care more about the fucking passed balls that deflate the shit out of the team, whether they lead to a run or not. It's deeper than that.
And meanwhile, dumbfuck, while you're finding no correlation between ERA & WP+PB/G, our team's era was extraordinary with the catcher I favored most... Koyie Hill. 2.98 is fucking amazing. Koyie Hill and Geovany Soto had the best WP+PB/G numbers for catchers who started more than 9 games for us. They also had the best catcher's era's. So, go fuck yourself.
We won the most games when they started. There's a lot of fucking correlation and causation there dumbfuck.
Why are you such a pussy? Why don't you run the correlation numbers of WP+PB/G and the team record when the various catchers started?
What, are you busy playing Dungeons and Dragons with Colin?
Anonymous, if RBI's are so team dependent, why do good hitters on lousy teams still rack up a ton of them while bad hitters on good teams don't?
It's not nearly as dependent as you think... but baseball prospectus sells more product because idiots like you think so.
Soriano:
2002 Yanks 102
2003 Yanks 91
2004 Rangers 91
2005 Rangers 104
Those are pretty fucking opposite teams you stupid motherfucker... why are the RBI's consistent?
Aramis Ramirez:
2003 106
2004 103
2006 119? Shit team
Vlad
Montreal
1998 109
1999 131
2000 123
2001 108
2002 111
2003 Injured
Anaheim
2004 126
2005 108
2006 116
2007 125
Where's the fucking team dependence you imbecile?
Carlos Lee
2003 CHW 113
2004 CHW 99
2005 MIL 114
2006 MIL/TEX 116
2007 HOU 119
Where's the team dependence, moron? It's nowhere... it hardly exists as to be relevant. But, baseball prospectus makes you think so they can still your idiot money. The three and four hitters on the fucking D-Ray's have a lot more RBI opportunities than you think.
Colin,
My teams means...
The Cubs with Koyie Hill instead of Kendall. The Cubs with Kenny instead of whomever you idiots were clamoring for in 2004. The Cubs with Ryan Theriot who helps you win loads of games.
I'm not the biggest Dusty Baker fan, but the rumor mill has it that he wants Kenny with Cincinnati... and that's smart. Dusty wanted Kenny in '04 when dumbfuck Hendry wanted Korey. Dusty was right.
I also can't wait for this year's Mariners who, if the rotation stays healthy, and if JJ Putz isn't a flash in the pan, are going to surprise a lot of people. All the statheads think they're the biggest idiots on earth right now, but we'll see.
They've got all the components I care about and they're going to win a lot of games. They need another bat in the outfield... and for Richie Sexson to remember what an RBI is... but still, they've got the makings of an excellent ballclub... they're one of 'my teams', not yours.
Either WP+PB/G correlates to run scoring in some way, which could be evident in ERA, and then eventually wins as we both know that if you lower your ERA, you allow fewer runs, which then improves your chances of winning more games. It's basic math.
Either it correlates in some way to the entire group or correlations found in smaller samples (one fucking team...I can swear too!) are outliers and should not in any way be expected to continue.
If you're on here trying to say that the Cubs won more games with so and so catching. No shit. We all saw that. Most of us, however, saw an abundance of reasons for that that had little to do with who was catching and the fact that there is no correlation at all between ERA and this stat more than proves it. If you're only goal is to present an interesting stat that appears to have correlated with the Cubs for a short period of time, do so, but don't come on here and act that you've found a new stat that will allow you to become Voros McCracken. I have already proven that stat does not correlate.
I used the same exact data you did. I just didn't cherry pick my findings and instead presented the group as a whole, which is what we do if we want to find out if there is a true correlation and not just a perceived one.
You can come around throwing all the insults you want and then failing, inevitably, each and every time to support your claims, usually long-winded as the result of what you must feel as a necessary inclusion of the word "fucking" at least 15 times in each comment and all you've done is make yourself look less intelligent.
Or you can take a step back, rethink your position based on this evidence that I have presented (based on the evidence you tried to pass off as a correlation that didn't exist), articulate your opinions, and try to learn with the group as we discuss baseball.
You won't do that though. You'll continue to throw around personal insults using obnoxious language that 18 year olds have already learned is inappropriate. You'll do this not because you actually think you are right, but because you are incapable of articulating your ideas and supporting them with evidence. Yes, blogs are communities that provide a forum for discussion and Colin's site isn't just some place where you're going to be allowed to state your opinion and have it be unchallenged. You better be able to support those opinions and when you others support their opinions with evidence and facts you had also better be willing to read it, learn it, and then further add to the discussion if you have anything left to say.
Instead of productive baseball discussion with you, all you get is a series of personal attacks, foul language you'll hear at a frat party, and the complete and total lack of substance and ability to support your own opinions with evidence and data that is so widely available today in this internet age.
Fear not. I'll continue to blow up every single opinion you have with detailed evidence just because it's easy and somewhat fun for me to waste a few minutes laughing at someone so unsure of himself that he has to tell lies about testing out of math and then patting himself on the back for writing eloquently. Eloquently?
Don't you mean "fucking eloquently?"
"Ryan Theriot helps you win loads of games."
Prove it. I'll keep an open mind about it even though my initial reaction is to laugh, but I promise to keep an open mind about it if you present some kind of factual evidence to support this opinion. I suggest reading up on sample size first though. I'm serious, The Hawk. If you are willing to put together some statistical information to support your opinion, I'll be more than willing to discuss this with you.
If you aren't at all interested in supporting your opinions, opinions that state something as fact that is clearly not a fact, then stop wasting our time. This is a Cubs blog and while an opinion or two from time to time might fly around here, these opinions you refuse to support with any valid evidence will not.
I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.
"Dusty wanted Kenny in '04 when dumbfuck Hendry wanted Korey. Dusty was right."
Another example. You pass that off as if it's fact. Prove it. I recall Dusty talking early in the 2003 offseason that Corey would be the CF next season and that if Lofton wanted to return, it would have to be in the back-up role, which Dusty admitted wasn't likely.
So find me your quote and prove you are right.
When you make a claim like this, it's on you to prove it. It is not on anyone else to prove anything.
Boston is one of "my teams."
I'll take my chances with my team against yours any day. This is fun.
I'll start the Ryan Theriot discussion to see if you're up for a little adult baseball discussion, perhaps without constant personal attacks and maybe even with some better language.
Ryan Theriot's most comparable players according to Baseball Reference are:
Jimmie Reese
Frank Bruggy
John Kroner
Johnny Lucadello
Jimmy Hallinan
According to Baseball Prospectus the 4 most comparable players:
Scott Fletcher
Doug Griffin
Ron Theobald
Joey Amalfitano
Would you say that any of these players wins loads of games for you? If not, how does Theriot differ from these 9 players that makes him so much more valuable than his most comparable players? Here is where a decent statistical comparison of Theriot to some of those ballplayers might come in handy.
Laughing...
So it's Maddog after all. Hilarious. You just can't live without communicating with me. Absolutely fucking hilarious.
Why not just write Maddog? Afraid what your girlfriends will think? Why not just comment at my site? Dumbfuck.
It would be even better if you weren't Maddog. You people are all clones... spouting the same shit baseball prospectus tells you to think. All of you... without an original idea in your fucking heads.
I've given you all the evidence in the world, but you won't run your little correlation because you're a pussy. You won't respond to the RBI post above because you have no retort. Coward. Absolutely no response. You're shell shocked, "Wait a second! He really has a point. I can't prove RBI's are that team dependent! What am I gonna do? Quick, what would Bill James say?"
Name a shift more significant than those at catcher last season. From a shit team... the best in the bigs... to a bleh team. Barrett to Hill/Bowen/Soto to Kendall.
You loser stat heads always want more evidence than I've provided. What fucking evidence? The catchers who can actually catch the fucking ball and got the best out of our pitchers... caused the most wins for the team. The pitchers are the constant... the catchers the shift. By your stathead methodologies, we should have won more games with Kendall. Prove why we didn't. Why were we worse with the catcher with the better bat?
If a team has a glaring weakness, it's biggest weakness... it gets remedied... than worsens again... that's highly significant in the win/loss column. This stat that's new to me, WP+PB/G highlights who did our best catching rather eloquently... but still not as eloquent as I am with my fucking words, you imbecile.
To a jury with brains, I've proven my point. To stat heads, they need more data than they've already been given to know the earth revolves around the sun, its axis tilts up and down depending on where we our in the journey, completes its 360 degree spin each day in 24 hours. I simply don't feel a need to prove this any further. I've proven it 100%. Anyone with a brain knows I'm right about the 2007 Cubs catcher scenario.
Name anything more significant that caused our team shifts last year. The only other possible amendment is that our best ball also coincided with Pie in center field. It's a shame how you stat heads have fucked the sport into thinking hitting's the most important part of the game. We won the most games when our D was most solid. D is a major part of baseball that you guys have attempted to minimize because the stats aren't sexy on it.
It's funny. GM at 1060 talked shit about our D last year... said it wasn't so great... said that D isn't that important... just look at Colorado. Fucking went on to prove my point.
The dumbfuck stathead who accomplishes significant work with the catcher position will be the next Voros McCracken. You won't... because you have no original thoughts, period. None. Name one.
Fuck, name even one original insight into the 2007 Cubs.
Boston is your team, and your mom is fucking Oprah Winfrey. Boston's my team too. A rotation rounded out with healthy guys who give innings, a lights out closer, great D up the middle with probably the greatest catcher in the last 10 years at minimizing passed balls and wild pitches, a balance of lefties and righties, obp and good plate approaches throughout the lineup.
Boston's your fucking team as much as you've never lived with a rainbow flag proudly flying outside your window.
Now, reveal yourself, you pussy.
As for Theriot, first of all...
I can't tell you how much I don't give a fuck that some baseball nerds have decided he's statistically comparable to other players.
Next, the only guy I remember well of any on the list is Scott Fletcher... who had nowhere close to the knack Theriot has for getting you a run late in a game. For being money defensively in the final two innings. For stealing bases. For making pitchers work their asses off and get annoyed.
I fucking love Theriot. It seems like his at-bats start once he's down two strikes. He's got amazing control of the strike zone and a rare gift for discerning a strike from a ball once the pitch has left the pitcher's hand. You just about never see the motherfucker swing at a bad pitch. If Soriano had his plate discipline, he'd be like Bonds on steroids.
Why don't you answer this question... since you're so queer?:
Why did the Cubs as a team score an equal amount of runs when Theriot hit leadoff while Soriano was injured twice in '07? Soriano out homered him by 30 and had a WAY higher OPS. So, how is that possible?
Why don't you answer the RBI question, you pussy?
I answer all your shit questions and then you're unhappy with my answers because they're not Bill James-certified. Your dumb ass can't answer a single one of mine. You're scared.
None of you stat heads ever answer them. Because then you'd have to live with the fact that you waste your lives on something of no value. At least baseball itself is a beautiful art... a great sport to follow. What you guys follow is fucking Dungeons and Dragons. It's like a queer casino with no stakes and no meanings.
I won't stop with the personal insults unless YOU answer a fucking question. Until YOU run your cute little correlation bullshit like I've asked 50 fucking times.
You're a coward... and I'm right.
I'm not Maddog, but I've learned what I wanted to. I tried to steer this discussion in a way that gave you a chance to defend your opinions in a manner that civil baseball fans do all the time, especially on sites like this. You weren't able to do so because you don't know. Now I can dismiss each and every opinion that you present as a fact knowing you can't provide sufficient data to back up your claim.
I have run the correlation, The Hawk. The Cubs catchers are in the group. Unless you think correlation is team specific, I've done what you asked. If you want to believe that 2+2=4 in some instances and in other instances it equals 5, so be it. A high school math level education will teach you that correlations in small samples are random occurrences. Like flipping a quarter 10 times and it landing heads 9 of those 10 times. You don't have a quarter that is going to land heads 90% of the time. You have one that landed heads 90% of the time in a small sample of coin flips.
I've given you the appropriate time to defend your comments and you have failed to present one piece of information to support them. When you make a claim, it is on you to prove it. I don't have to disprove your claims though I did so rather easily.
I even moved the discussion towards Ryan Theriot who you "fucking love" thinking you could at least articulate, intelligently, why he wins loads of games. Rather than taking some time to look into Ryan Theriot so you can present your case with strong evidence you stuck with opinions that have no value to this discussion.
I have given you multiple chances to defend your many arguments and each time you refuse to. It's either because you are incapable of doing so or because you know you won't find any information to support your opinions.
Instead of defending your opinions, you resort to personal attacks, which include the use of foul language because you think if you say it louder, it will make you right. I wouldn't begin to consider taking you on when it comes to personal insults. You'd beat me pretty bad as it's not something I've taken part in since Junior High School. Most adults outgrow the need to belittle others so that they themselves feel better.
I will end this discussion by saying that I don't think you're an idiot. I don't think you're stupid. You just don't know how to support your arguments with evidence and in that absence you get defensive and resort to insults and foul language.
I wouldn't even call your behavior pathetic. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt by you to make yourself seem smarter to the group. Attack the commenter, use foul language. That's what people do when they can't attack the arguments.
I gave you a chance and you confirmed my initial opinion of you.
Goodbye!
Check Mate,
Your response only dealt in the personal and not on baseball as per usual from statheads when it comes to where they're wrong.
You've confirmed that I'm dead on with the catchers. Yet, you're trying to spin it as a lucky shot. You're scared to answer the RBI question and your 'team dependent' bullshit. You refuse to answer the question regarding how the Cubs with the far inferior hitter Ryan Theriot scored the same amount of runs with he as leadoff man... as with Alfonso Soriano.
Completely owned.
I'm not smarter than everyone... but I know baseball better than WARP3 fanatics. The conclusion of this thread proves it.
You'll visit my site this summer to learn the true strengths and weaknesses of the Cubs. You won't find it anywhere else but at my site and jbrokaw.wordpress.com.
The truth hurts. You want civil language? Approach my ideas with civility instead of stathead bullshit denouncements. What, at the end you changed your tune so I should as well? Answer the fucking questions.
Hawk,
You homophobic, fucking hick, fucking racist. I would like to buy you a big can o beer. You cow-tipping slipknot fan, fucking cow-tipper.
I win.
Bye-Bye.
Okay, sure Ryno, Maddog, Oog... whomever is talking shit this time. Come out to LA and buy me a beer. I'll take a Guinness.
See, I'm gay/hick friendly.