PDA

View Full Version : ROFL at backhanded BP critique


Mr. White Sox
09-30-2005, 02:42 PM
BP is getting its panties in a bunch as the playoff odds report still shows the White Sox with only an 88% chance of winning the division. Their long-winded, annoying explanation is as follows:

Yes, the playoff odds still show Chicago as having only an 88.7% chance of
winning the division, even though they have clinched. In a normal world, the
White Sox have only clinched a tie for the division; the report is giving
Cleveland a 22.6055% chance of sweeping the three games with Chicago, which
would give them identical records and mean that each gets credited with
11.30275 championships - half the disputed number. Since they would also
be tied for the wild card in that scenario, they each get 11.30275 wild cards
as well. MLB has decided that that means Chicago is a champion and Cleveland
is a wild card, but just becaue MLB calls a tie a win doesn't make it one.

But it's their game and their rules, so in that respect they can do whatever
they want. Congratulations to the White Sox for clinching a playoff spot.

You can find their (incorrect) playoff odds report here (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php).

PaleHoseGeorge
09-30-2005, 02:50 PM
BP is getting its panties in a bunch as the playoff odds report still shows the White Sox with only an 88% chance of winning the division. Their long-winded, annoying explanation is as follows:


I love it. If this doesn't prove what a bass ackwards outfit Baseball Prospectus is, I don't know what does. Their ****ing "odds" model doesn't work, so they blame MLB instead of their own flawed "odds" system.
:roflmao:

Hellllll-oooooo... anybody home? It's not for BP to decide who clinches and how they clinch. MLB makes the rules, not BP.

These people are ****ing dopes. Make that pompous, ignorant ****ing dopes. Who the **** do they think they're kidding?

:o:

maurice
09-30-2005, 02:56 PM
Wow, in a bold move, BP has stolen Phil Rogers' crown as undisputed leader of made up statistics. Clinching the division = an 88.7% chance of winning the division? They wrote that with a straight face? This crap would make Shoota blush.

Brian26
09-30-2005, 03:00 PM
Hellllll-oooooo... anybody home? It's not for BP to decide who clinches and how they clinch. MLB makes the rules, not BP.

These people are ****ing dopes. Make that pompous, ignorant ****ing dopes. Who the **** do they think they're kidding?

:o:

You know what really pisses me off? These clowns who are calling for a one-game playoff to determine a true division champion if we both end up with the same record after Sunday. Tell me why it makes sense to have a one-game playoff when we've already had a Best 10-out-of-19-games playoff series with the Indians throughout the course of the season and have already clinched with 11 wins. Even if the Jndians sweep the weekend series, we win the season series 11-8. We owns these clowns.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-30-2005, 03:09 PM
You know what really pisses me off? These clowns who are calling for a one-game playoff to determine a true division champion if we both end up with the same record after Sunday. Tell me why it makes sense to have a one-game playoff when we've already had a Best 10-out-of-19-games playoff series with the Indians throughout the course of the season and have already clinched with 11 wins. Even if the Jndians sweep the weekend series, we win the season series 11-8. We owns these clowns.

Tony LaRussa cried like a baby when his team wasn't given a 1 team playoff against the Houston Astros in 2001. The Cardinals refer to that season as "co champions" of the NL Central. MLB, however, names Houston as the rightful NL Central champions.

tebman
09-30-2005, 04:07 PM
Quote:

Yes, the playoff odds still show Chicago as having only an 88.7% chance of
winning the division, even though they have clinched. In a normal world, the
White Sox have only clinched a tie for the division; the report is giving
Cleveland a 22.6055% chance of sweeping the three games with Chicago, which
would give them identical records and mean that each gets credited with
11.30275 championships - half the disputed number. Since they would also
be tied for the wild card in that scenario, they each get 11.30275 wild cards
as well. MLB has decided that that means Chicago is a champion and Cleveland
is a wild card, but just becaue MLB calls a tie a win doesn't make it one.

But it's their game and their rules, so in that respect they can do whatever
they want. Congratulations to the White Sox for clinching a playoff spot.



:hawk "Your what hurts?"

Ol' No. 2
09-30-2005, 04:37 PM
My favorit part: just becaue MLB calls a tie a win doesn't make it one.Um...yes it does.

Edit: What's next, "Just because the Sox scored more runs doesn't mean they won the game"?

chitownhawkfan
09-30-2005, 05:05 PM
They sound like a pouty little child, "well if MLB wants to take their ball and go home fine, then we wont play with them"

Thanks for the Comic Relief BP
:rolling:

jabrch
09-30-2005, 07:20 PM
Using that logic, I have a 12% chance of winning last Wednesday's lottery. I have a 12% chance of having found a $1000 bill on my way to work on Wednesday, and the Tigers have a 12% chance of making the playoffs...


Amazing...The fact that anyone pays any attention to this group of idiots is beyond me.

Goose
09-30-2005, 07:52 PM
:?:

beckett21
09-30-2005, 10:31 PM
What an embarassment.

Do people that stupid really exist? :?:

FarWestChicago
09-30-2005, 10:40 PM
Well, the ****ing morons at BP have a real problem now that our Hangover Lineup beat the Jndjans. :D:

SouthSide_HitMen
09-30-2005, 10:58 PM
Well, the ****ing morons at BP have a real problem now that our Hangover Lineup beat the Jndjans. :D:

BP has updated the playoff odds!!!

The White Sox are now a 93% favorite to win the division after our win tonight!!!

I hope we can hold on!

itsnotrequired
09-30-2005, 10:58 PM
Well, the ****ing morons at BP have a real problem now that our Hangover Lineup beat the Jndjans. :D:

just becaue MLB says a Hangover Lineup that scores more runs than a lineup full of regular starters is a win doesn't make it one. We make their chances to clinch the division at 99.43%.

jabrch
10-01-2005, 10:00 AM
Did you see BP's new "statistical analysis"? Because our players VORP/EQA + ERA+ is lower than the ratio of their ass/armpits, our wins should be reduced by 5% each. The fact that MLB doesn't agee with them just means that MLB doesn't understand and are too old to really understand how the real world works (in their statistical models). So we now have 93 Adjusted WinShares + and we should have a 66% chance of making the playoffs. This number is to be used in the standings henceforth. Meanwhile, Oakland gains the 5% and have 90 wins. Since Billy Beane walks on water, Oakland will be allowed into the BP playoffs.

I can't wait to see their article that projects out how well the As would have done in the playoffs IF they had made it.

And on a related note, the FOBB loved teams (LA, Oak, Toronto) are combined for 10 games below .500. Add in the 150mm+ Red Sox and you may have 1 playoff team in the lot. HA HA HA

voodoochile
10-01-2005, 10:26 AM
Did you see BP's new "statistical analysis"? Because our players VORP/EQA + ERA+ is lower than the ratio of their ass/armpits, our wins should be reduced by 5% each. The fact that MLB doesn't agee with them just means that MLB doesn't understand and are too old to really understand how the real world works (in their statistical models). So we now have 93 Adjusted WinShares + and we should have a 66% chance of making the playoffs. This number is to be used in the standings henceforth. Meanwhile, Oakland gains the 5% and have 90 wins. Since Billy Beane walks on water, Oakland will be allowed into the BP playoffs.

I can't wait to see their article that projects out how well the As would have done in the playoffs IF they had made it.

And on a related note, the FOBB loved teams (LA, Oak, Toronto) are combined for 10 games below .500. Add in the 150mm+ Red Sox and you may have 1 playoff team in the lot. HA HA HA

So that's where shoota gets his info...

I do love the final paragraph. Too ****ing funny. Almost makes me want to root for the toons... almost...

Someone needs to tell BP that "this is why they actually play the gams..." :rolleyes:

Brian26
10-01-2005, 10:32 AM
BP has updated the playoff odds!!!

The White Sox are now a 93% favorite to win the division after our win tonight!!!

I hope we can hold on!

So there's a 7% chance our team might be involved in a plane crash before tomorrow's game? What in the hell are these guys at BP smoking? Good grief.

hose
10-01-2005, 11:12 AM
There's a 100% chance I'm not getting a refund for my ALDS tickets.

Don't lose focus guys, it's crucial that the A's improve their walk totals these last 2 games. May be just may be they can squeeze out 8-10 and increase their team obp.

chitownhawkfan
10-01-2005, 12:01 PM
Did you see BP's new "statistical analysis"? Because our players VORP/EQA + ERA+ is lower than the ratio of their ass/armpits, our wins should be reduced by 5% each. The fact that MLB doesn't agee with them just means that MLB doesn't understand and are too old to really understand how the real world works (in their statistical models). So we now have 93 Adjusted WinShares + and we should have a 66% chance of making the playoffs. This number is to be used in the standings henceforth. Meanwhile, Oakland gains the 5% and have 90 wins. Since Billy Beane walks on water, Oakland will be allowed into the BP playoffs.
HA HA HA

Classic! :rolling:

I think I am going to save this quote and use it whenever I get into some senseless argument about WARP or VORP or CRAP with some FOBB who has been drinking the Bill James kool aid.

samram
10-01-2005, 01:09 PM
I can't wait to see their article that projects out how well the As would have done in the playoffs IF they had made it.

Yeah, we've all seen that movie before, and, you know, it just wasn't that good; although I'm sure BP would give it treatment equivalent to that given by Gene Siskel to Space Jam.

By the way, BP declares the Sox have a 94% chance of winning last night's game.

spiffie
10-01-2005, 01:16 PM
Did you see BP's new "statistical analysis"? Because our players VORP/EQA + ERA+ is lower than the ratio of their ass/armpits, our wins should be reduced by 5% each. The fact that MLB doesn't agee with them just means that MLB doesn't understand and are too old to really understand how the real world works (in their statistical models). So we now have 93 Adjusted WinShares + and we should have a 66% chance of making the playoffs. This number is to be used in the standings henceforth. Meanwhile, Oakland gains the 5% and have 90 wins. Since Billy Beane walks on water, Oakland will be allowed into the BP playoffs.
Does the winner of the BP playoffs go against the winner of the Simulated World Series for the championship of pretend baseball? Because it's going to be tough to top the Cubs in a pretend series with sure-fire Simulated Hall of Famers Mark Prior and Kerry Wood going to the pretend mound for them.

longshot7
10-01-2005, 02:58 PM
BP is getting its panties in a bunch as the playoff odds report still shows the White Sox with only an 88% chance of winning the division. Their long-winded, annoying explanation is as follows:


You can find their (incorrect) playoff odds report here (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php).


What does that say in English?


BP sucks. Nerds.

hose
10-01-2005, 03:49 PM
BP just increased it to 93.4% after the Sox second win in Cleveland. If they can sweep the series look for a 98% rating.

chitownhawkfan
10-01-2005, 06:08 PM
Does the winner of the BP playoffs go against the winner of the Simulated World Series for the championship of pretend baseball? Because it's going to be tough to top the Cubs in a pretend series with sure-fire Simulated Hall of Famers Mark Prior and Kerry Wood going to the pretend mound for them.

POTW?:D:

jabrch
10-02-2005, 04:47 PM
Well - BP can go back to Strat-O-Matic baseball and see what the Toons chance is now.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2005, 04:49 PM
Well - BP can go back to Strat-O-Matic baseball and see what the Toons chance is now.

You just know the twerps at BP probably keep rolling the dice until they get the outcome they were hoping for.

:)

tebman
10-02-2005, 05:01 PM
You just know the twerps at BP probably keep rolling the dice until they get the outcome they were hoping for.

:)

And if that doesn't work, they can try rolling the dice in an APBA game. Then they can publish what the odds are of winning while simulating a simulated series.

jabrch
10-07-2005, 08:21 PM
I just checked BP - we have a 99% chance of winning the AL Central and a 50% chance of winning the ALDS over Boston. Not too shabby, huh?

jabrch
10-14-2005, 11:55 PM
I just checked BP - we have a 99% chance of winning the AL Central and a 50% chance of winning the ALDS over Boston. Not too shabby, huh?

Our odds of winning the AL Central are 99.5%. Things are looking up!!!

SouthSide_HitMen
10-15-2005, 01:19 AM
Whats even more pathetic is their "Playoff Odds" report. All four teams are within 2% of 25% for winning the World Series and 50% of winning the pennant.

Wow - This is the best anaylsis ever!!!

White Sox 50.06% chance to win the AL Pennant, 26.64% the World Series

Anaheim 49.94%, 25.02%

St. Louis 51.06%, 24.88%

Houston 48.94%, 23.46%

FarWestChicago
10-15-2005, 01:21 AM
Whats even more pathetic is their "Playoff Odds" report. All four teams are within 2% of 25% for winning the World Series and 50% of winning the pennant.

Wow - This is the best anaylsis ever!!!

White Sox 50.06% chance to win the AL Pennant, 26.64% the World Series

Anaheim 49.94%, 25.02%

St. Louis 51.06%, 24.88%

Houston 48.94%, 23.46%No, the most pathetic thing is the sheep who pay for this crap so they can reguritate it and show everybody how intelligent they are.

voodoochile
10-15-2005, 03:17 AM
Whats even more pathetic is their "Playoff Odds" report. All four teams are within 2% of 25% for winning the World Series and 50% of winning the pennant.

Wow - This is the best anaylsis ever!!!

White Sox 50.06% chance to win the AL Pennant, 26.64% the World Series

Anaheim 49.94%, 25.02%

St. Louis 51.06%, 24.88%

Houston 48.94%, 23.46%

I bet the margin of error turns ALL of those stats into perfect 50's for all intents and purposes.

Ol' No. 2
10-15-2005, 10:18 AM
I bet the margin of error turns ALL of those stats into perfect 50's for all intents and purposes.BP: "Margin of error? What is this margin of error of which you speak?"

jabrch
10-16-2005, 02:17 AM
No, the most pathetic thing is the sheep who pay for this crap so they can reguritate it and show everybody how intelligent they are.

Speaking of which, not many FOBB sightings lately...

The two Anti-FOBB teams are in the ALCS. The 4 teams remaining all are teams that steal, and that swing at the ball rather than walk and wait for the three run HR. There are no teams remaining run by propellerheads. Pencilneck Geeky GMs have 0 wins in the post season this year.

Oh, and ya know what...Next year isn't looking too good for them either.

ma-gaga
10-20-2005, 02:09 PM
No, the most pathetic thing is the sheep who pay for this crap so they can reguritate it and show everybody how intelligent they are.

"baaaa." From todays World Series Prospectus page:



[main "boring" article snipped, lots of numbers and statistics, including 'made up' ones like VORP, WARP3, etc.,etc.]

Prediction
More than any series this year, the World Series is going to turn on the smallest of events, those tiny differences that are smoothed out over a season but are impossible to predict in a short series.
...
This yearís World Series games are going to be tight and more than a few will likely be decided by a single run.
...
These teams are incredibly similar--mediocre offenses, top-notch run prevention, and a heavy reliance on right-handed players
...
Astros in seven.


Anyone want to join my fantasy league?

:gulp:

SouthSide_HitMen
10-20-2005, 02:36 PM
jabrch (Chicago): On June 29, 2004, Gary Huckaby Said, "I think they did give up too much, but Iím lower on Freddy than most, and higher on Jeremy Reed than I probably should be." A year later, what do you think of Jeremy Reed, Miguel Olivo, Michael Morse and Freddy Garcia? Do you still think the Sox gave up too much - given that Reed hit .254/.322/.352, the other guys the Ms got are of little value and Garcia had a 3.84 ERA in a very hitters friendly park? Olivo is regressing. Morse can't seem to find a position. Your thoughts now?

Gary Huckabay: I expected Jeremy Reed to show more power and plate discipline than he did, even in spacious Safeco. Iím still not nuts about Garcia, despite his OK ERA on the year. As for Mike Morse, heís something of a mystery at this point, for a number of reasons. Overall, we still donít know how things will end up looking when we evaluate that trade. Aside from the performances in question, thereís the contracts to consider. Iím not sure that itís really all that big of a deal. Kenny Williams deserves credit, though, so consider these official kudos.

And yes, I still think they gave up too much. But a flag flies forever.

:rolleyes: I am sure Kenny Williams gives a rats behind about "official kudos" or the thought the White Sox "gave up too much" to get Garcia.

Also, I don't understand how a pitcher ranked 19th by their own VORP statistic has an "OK" season.

maurice
10-20-2005, 04:06 PM
I don't understand how a pitcher ranked 19th by their own VORP statistic has an "OK" season.

Yeah, Garcia's much better than these people seem to realize. Heck, he's better than the top starter on a lot of MLB teams. Even from a pure numbers perspective, Garcia has been a well-above average pitcher over his career.

Flight #24
10-20-2005, 04:21 PM
This yearís World Series games are going to be tight and more than a few will likely be decided by a single run.
...
These teams are incredibly similar--mediocre offenses, top-notch run prevention, and a heavy reliance on right-handed players
...
Astros in seven.

Mediocre = doesn't wait for the 3-run HR. Yet the "mediocre" Sox O is IIRC the highest scoring in the postseason (based on runs/game).

One of BP's myriad problems is that they like to take a bunch of stats based on games against a wide variety of pitchers and insist that they apply to the upper echelon. As if the way to be successful against guys like Jose Lima is going to be the same if you go against Roger Clemens. There are a lot more Lima's than Clemens, which skews their "analysis".

Scrapping for runs = playoff scoring. Which is probably why Billy Beane's offensive juggernauts have bever advanced despite having some pretty studly pitching.

Flight #24
10-20-2005, 04:25 PM
Gary Huckabay: I expected Jeremy Reed to show more power and plate discipline than he did, even in spacious Safeco. Iím still not nuts about Garcia, despite his OK ERA on the year. As for Mike Morse, heís something of a mystery at this point, for a number of reasons. Overall, we still donít know how things will end up looking when we evaluate that trade. Aside from the performances in question, thereís the contracts to consider. Iím not sure that itís really all that big of a deal. Kenny Williams deserves credit, though, so consider these official kudos.

And yes, I still think they gave up too much. But a flag flies forever.



A sub-4 ERA in arguably the best hitters park in the AL is "OK"?

Translation: Don't confuse me with facts, Reed could be out of baseball and Garcia on his 2d Cy Young and Kenny Williams would STILL be an idiot!!!

MRKARNO
10-20-2005, 04:50 PM
A sub-4 ERA in arguably the best hitters park in the AL is "OK"?


Garcia would have probably been the unquestioned number one starter on the following AL teams:

Tampa Bay
Baltimore
Boston
Kansas City
Detroit


And the questionable no. 1 or no. 2 on these teams:

Seattle
New York
Texas
Toronto
Cleveland

Only Minnesota, Oakland and Los Angeles unquestionably do not fall into this category. Garcia was our number four starter. That was a huge key for us this year.

PaulDrake
10-20-2005, 04:56 PM
What's next, "Just because the Sox scored more runs doesn't mean they won the game"?
That basically explains why I find the whole Billy Beane, moneyball, stathead thing ridiculous. They make their own reality.

voodoochile
10-20-2005, 06:01 PM
That basically explains why I find the whole Billy Beane, moneyball, stathead thing ridiculous. They make their own reality.

And what a great thing it is... I mean who wouldn't love to get paid to make up meaningless crap stats, give generic analysis that any 13 YO can do and sounds like it comes out of Bull Durham and in general laugh at everyone who thinks you are an idiot and claim they are too stupid to understand you?

Where do I sign up for a paying job like that?:rolleyes:

bigfoot
10-20-2005, 06:24 PM
Even More BP BS

STAT OF THE DAY

Top 5 2005 AL Rookie Position Players, by Value Over Replacement Player
(VORP)

Player, Team, POS, EqA, VORP

Jonny Gomes, TBA, DH, .317, 36.9
Tadahito Iguchi, CHA, 2B, .277, 30.9
Robinson Cano, NYA, 2B, .272, 27.3
Daniel Johnson, OAK, 1B, .287, 21.2
Russ Adams, TOR, SS, .257, 19.0

SouthSide_HitMen
10-20-2005, 06:25 PM
And what a great thing it is... I mean who wouldn't love to get paid to make up meaningless crap stats, give generic analysis that any 13 YO can do and sounds like it comes out of Bull Durham and in general laugh at everyone who thinks you are an idiot and claim they are too stupid to understand you?

Where do I sign up for a paying job like that?:rolleyes:

And give up your job as soda jerk? That's crazy talk.

voodoochile
10-20-2005, 06:28 PM
And give up your job as soda jerk? That's crazy talk.

I can do both. This one is easy. I mean what the heck, we only had 108 new posters register and 1.75M hits on Monday...:rolleyes::tongue::D:

1.75 MILLION hits...

It boggles the mind...

MRKARNO
10-20-2005, 06:43 PM
I can do both. This one is easy. I mean what the heck, we only had 108 new posters register and 1.75M hits on Monday...:rolleyes::tongue::D:

1.75 MILLION hits...

It boggles the mind...

This site has grown soooo fast. I remember back in the good old days, April 2005 to be exact when WSI had only 4000 members.

2500 new members in 6 months? :thumbsup:

jabrch
10-20-2005, 08:10 PM
jabrch (Chicago): On June 29, 2004, Gary Huckaby Said, "I think they did give up too much, but Iím lower on Freddy than most, and higher on Jeremy Reed than I probably should be." A year later, what do you think of Jeremy Reed, Miguel Olivo, Michael Morse and Freddy Garcia? Do you still think the Sox gave up too much - given that Reed hit .254/.322/.352, the other guys the Ms got are of little value and Garcia had a 3.84 ERA in a very hitters friendly park? Olivo is regressing. Morse can't seem to find a position. Your thoughts now?

Gary Huckabay: I expected Jeremy Reed to show more power and plate discipline than he did, even in spacious Safeco. Iím still not nuts about Garcia, despite his OK ERA on the year. As for Mike Morse, heís something of a mystery at this point, for a number of reasons. Overall, we still donít know how things will end up looking when we evaluate that trade. Aside from the performances in question, thereís the contracts to consider. Iím not sure that itís really all that big of a deal. Kenny Williams deserves credit, though, so consider these official kudos.

And yes, I still think they gave up too much. But a flag flies forever.

:rolleyes: I am sure Kenny Williams gives a rats behind about "official kudos" or the thought the White Sox "gave up too much" to get Garcia.

Also, I don't understand how a pitcher ranked 19th by their own VORP statistic has an "OK" season.

What a brilliant question... :-)

Daver
10-20-2005, 08:12 PM
This site has grown soooo fast. I remember back in the good old days, April 2005 to be exact when WSI had only 4000 members.

2500 new members in 6 months? :thumbsup:


I remember 2001 when we had 250 members.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-20-2005, 08:27 PM
What a brilliant question... :-)

I thought so and that is why I posted it here. I know you didn't want to toot your own horn or anything but kudos go out to you for your question (I scan the web chat for White Sox questions and have noticed a few you submitted). It is hard to maintain credibility when you (i.e BP / Hunsicker) still defend the indefensible position of saying the Garcia trade was a bad one for the White Sox (I didn't like it the first few days after the trade because it was for three months but after the extension was signed I thought at worst the White Sox broke even) but they came out way ahead - even if Reed recovers from his poor performance after this season, Olivo was given away for nothing and steroids SS Mike Morse is not expected to do much.

How can anyone say with a straight face the Mariners won the Garcia trade 15 months afterwards?

jabrch
10-21-2005, 05:55 AM
I thought so and that is why I posted it here. I know you didn't want to toot your own horn or anything but kudos go out to you for your question (I scan the web chat for White Sox questions and have noticed a few you submitted). It is hard to maintain credibility when you (i.e BP / Hunsicker) still defend the indefensible position of saying the Garcia trade was a bad one for the White Sox (I didn't like it the first few days after the trade because it was for three months but after the extension was signed I thought at worst the White Sox broke even) but they came out way ahead - even if Reed recovers from his poor performance after this season, Olivo was given away for nothing and steroids SS Mike Morse is not expected to do much.

How can anyone say with a straight face the Mariners won the Garcia trade 15 months afterwards?

Yeah, I have been pounding them in the last 4 or 5 chats. Digging up each person's last chat and pointing out how their bias gets in the way of making smart evaluations. They don't care - just keep on going and say the model is right - this event is just an outlier...

The Podsednik question I asked was one of my favorite. The writer insisted that the best thing KW could possibly do is trade Podsednik this offseason before it is too late... AMAZING - Quite simply Amazing.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-21-2005, 07:05 AM
Yeah, I have been pounding them in the last 4 or 5 chats. Digging up each person's last chat and pointing out how their bias gets in the way of making smart evaluations. They don't care - just keep on going and say the model is right - this event is just an outlier...

The Podsednik question I asked was one of my favorite. The writer insisted that the best thing KW could possibly do is trade Podsednik this offseason before it is too late... AMAZING - Quite simply Amazing.

Could the White Sox get Jeremy Reed for him or would the Mariners be giving up too much? LOL Maybe we can throw in an "OK" pitcher like Freddy Garcia to even things out.
I still think Lee > Podsednik - BUT - Podsednik, AJ & Hermanson >(far greater) than Lee. It is not even close and something BP does not admit to or take into account in their evaluation.

Iguana775
10-21-2005, 09:05 AM
I remember 2001 when we had 250 members.

ahhh...the old days....

voodoochile
10-21-2005, 06:28 PM
Yeah, I have been pounding them in the last 4 or 5 chats. Digging up each person's last chat and pointing out how their bias gets in the way of making smart evaluations. They don't care - just keep on going and say the model is right - this event is just an outlier...

The Podsednik question I asked was one of my favorite. The writer insisted that the best thing KW could possibly do is trade Podsednik this offseason before it is too late... AMAZING - Quite simply Amazing.

Dumbasses who don't really understand the stats they are working with and desperately need to prove they are right love to throw out data and call it an outlier. Happens all the time in research in to paranormal phenommenon. No shock that it isn't restricted to people who "want to believe in fantastical stuff".

Oh wait...:tongue:

maurice
10-21-2005, 06:47 PM
Let's put it this way, Garcia is kicking ass in the playoffs for the White Sox. The dynamic trio of Reed, Morse, and Olivo would not even crack our starting lineup. Heck, Olivo couldn't crack the starting lineup on a very bad Mariners team and got traded again, while Morse rides the pine with another steroids suspension.

Clearly KW got hosed!
:dtroll:

---

:crede
"Play some ****ing Journey!"