PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stat...


czalgosz
01-22-2002, 10:34 PM
I'm NOT trying to resurrect the Clayton/Valentin debate, but I was looking at fielding stats for 2001, and here are the AL leaders in 2001 for shortstops in total chances per nine innings (minimum - 800 innings played). It's not a perfect stat, as a lot of it has to do with the pitching staff, the range of the 2b and 3b, etc., etc., but it's at least interesting and it gives an idea at least of how good a fielder one is...

1. Rey Sanchez - KC - 5.19 TC/9
2. Alex Gonzalez - TOR - 5.03
3. Alex Rodriguez - TEX - 4.84
4. Miguel Tejada - OAK - 4.71
5. Royce Clayton - CHI - 4.59
6. Deivi Cruz - DET - 4.56
7. Cristian Guzman - MIN - 4.55
8. David Eckstein - ANA - 4.49
9. Omar Vizquel - CLE - 4.36
10. Carlos Guillen - SEA - 4.10
11. Derek Jeter - NY - 3.91

FWIW, Jose Valentin's TC/9 at short, in 310 innings, was 5.55.

Again, this is not extremely meaningful, just interesting.

dougs78
01-22-2002, 10:42 PM
It is a somewhat interesting stat. I don't really think it means a whole lot either, but interesting nonetheless.

By the way czalgosz, I do love that Nietszche, you have in your quote. Great, great line. Also, whats the reasoning behind your name? Not a huge fan of the McKinley administration??? How about the a instead of the o? any significance??

PaleHoseGeorge
01-22-2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I'm NOT trying to resurrect the Clayton/Valentin debate, but I was looking at fielding stats for 2001, and here are the AL leaders in 2001 for shortstops in total chances per nine innings


<struggling mightily>Mussst.... noooot... reee... spond....</struggling mightily>

:gulp:

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by dougs78

Also, whats the reasoning behind your name? Not a huge fan of the McKinley administration??? How about the a instead of the o? any significance??

The "a" is a simple typo - I wasn't sure how to spell it, so I just got as close as I could. I was too lazy to change it when I found out the error.

The significance of the name is far too long to get into here. Long story short, Leon Czolgosz is one of the few historical figures in which philosophy and history (my two passions) come together.

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



<struggling mightily>Mussst.... noooot... reee... spond....</struggling mightily>

:gulp:

Hey, like I said, it doesn't mean much.and by my own standards, Valentin did a better job in his time at short than Clayton did, so...

Daver
01-22-2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge



<struggling mightily>Mussst.... noooot... reee... spond....</struggling mightily>

:gulp:

OK PHG I'll do it for you.
Jose is a ballplayer,Royce Clayton is the MLB version of a Buddy Lee doll,he looks good at the end of the commercial,but you never see him do anything.
And all the pitchers in the AL thank him for it.

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by daver


OK PHG I'll do it for you.
Jose is a ballplayer,Royce Clayton is the MLB version of a Buddy Lee doll,he looks good at the end of the commercial,but you never see him do anything.
And all the pitchers in the AL thank him for it.

Well, like I said, all I have to judge him by is the numbers, and the numbers are apparently deceiving.

Iwritecode
01-22-2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I'm NOT trying to resurrect the Clayton/Valentin debate, but I was looking at fielding stats for 2001, and here are the AL leaders in 2001 for shortstops in total chances per nine innings (minimum - 800 innings played). It's not a perfect stat, as a lot of it has to do with the pitching staff, the range of the 2b and 3b, etc., etc., but it's at least interesting and it gives an idea at least of how good a fielder one is...

1. Rey Sanchez - KC - 5.19 TC/9
2. Alex Gonzalez - TOR - 5.03
3. Alex Rodriguez - TEX - 4.84
4. Miguel Tejada - OAK - 4.71
5. Royce Clayton - CHI - 4.59
6. Deivi Cruz - DET - 4.56
7. Cristian Guzman - MIN - 4.55
8. David Eckstein - ANA - 4.49
9. Omar Vizquel - CLE - 4.36
10. Carlos Guillen - SEA - 4.10
11. Derek Jeter - NY - 3.91

FWIW, Jose Valentin's TC/9 at short, in 310 innings, was 5.55.

Again, this is not extremely meaningful, just interesting.

OK, if I am reading this right this stat shows that Royce had a ball hit to him about 4.59 times a game. You didn't happen to run across what he did with each chance did you?

Let me try and guess...

1st chance : infield single (runner beats his weak-armed throw)
2nd chance: fielder's choice (he can't get the ball to second in time to turn the DP
3rd chance: Let's the ball go bye him a la "fire hydrant".
4th chance: actually makes an out!

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


OK, if I am reading this right this stat shows that Royce had a ball hit to him about 4.59 times a game. You didn't happen to run across what he did with each chance did you?

Let me try and guess...

1st chance : infield single (runner beats his weak-armed throw)
2nd chance: fielder's choice (he can't get the ball to second in time to turn the DP
3rd chance: Let's the ball go bye him a la "fire hydrant".
4th chance: actually makes an out!

Actually, a "chance" is either an assist or a putout or an error, so example 1 and 3 wouldn't count as chances.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-22-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

Actually, a "chance" is either an assist or a putout or an error, so example 1 and 3 wouldn't count as chances.

Exactly. Which explains why Clayton gets one less chance per game than Manos. Runners beating his throws and balls he never gets to don't count in this stat. In code's examples, they just happen to result in two fewer outs.

Not that I was counting, or anything. :D:

Daver
01-22-2002, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Exactly. Which explains why Clayton gets one less chance per game than Manos. Runners beating his throws and balls he never gets to don't count in this stat. In code's examples, they just happen to result in two fewer outs.

Not that I was counting, or anything. :D:

I thought you had sworn off the Manos/Rocks and garbage argument.

Addicting isn't it?

pearso66
01-22-2002, 11:58 PM
I've always thought that the reason jose gets more errors, is he has more range than the average ss. granted the ones where he makes throwing errors dont really apply, unless you say that he was rushing cuz he was actually trying to get the out instead of sitting on the ball, but still, i do believe he has great range at short

czalgosz
01-22-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by daver


I thought you had sworn off the Manos/Rocks and garbage argument.

Addicting isn't it?

Every time I try to get away, they pull me back in!!!

Iwritecode
01-22-2002, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Actually, a "chance" is either an assist or a putout or an error, so example 1 and 3 wouldn't count as chances.

Wow, don't I look like an iditot. :(:

Well, going by my interpretation, I still stand by what I say if Royce had 4 balls hit to him...

:)

AsInWreck
01-23-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode


OK, if I am reading this right this stat shows that Royce had a ball hit to him about 4.59 times a game. You didn't happen to run across what he did with each chance did you?

Let me try and guess...

1st chance : infield single (runner beats his weak-armed throw)
2nd chance: fielder's choice (he can't get the ball to second in time to turn the DP
3rd chance: Let's the ball go bye him a la "fire hydrant".
4th chance: actually makes an out!

Statistically speaking #1 and #3 would not be considered a chance/base hits are not included-edit-i guess someone already addressed that

bjmarte
01-23-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Every time I try to get away, they pull me back in!!! :?: You started the thread :?:

FarWestChicago
01-23-2002, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte
:?: You started the thread :?: He was doing a Godfather III number in reference to PHG. :smile:

bjmarte
01-23-2002, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
He was doing a Godfather III number in reference to PHG. :smile:

Sorry, I was slow on the uptake. But I got it now :smile:

bjmarte
01-23-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Sorry, I was slow on the uptake. But I got it now :smile:

I think putting the picture of Royce in my sig has affected my IQ (temporarily I hope) :smile:

Randar68
01-23-2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Exactly. Which explains why Clayton gets one less chance per game than Manos. Runners beating his throws and balls he never gets to don't count in this stat. In code's examples, they just happen to result in two fewer outs.

Not that I was counting, or anything. :D:

IMO, since the pitching staff is the common ingredient, we have out answer...

Over 162 games, at these rates, Manos gets 155.52 more balls then Royce...

At their career Fielding percentages, over the course of a full season:

Royce: 743.58 chances * .971 career Fielding % at SS = 722.01618 outs, 21.5 errors
Jose: 899.1 chances * .956 career Fielding % at SS = 859.5396 outs, 39.56 errors


I think it's painfully obvious how much more valuable Jose is at SS then Royce, even defensively! 137.52342 more outs per season...

Huisj
01-23-2002, 04:20 PM
i'm curious, what was jose's range stat in 2000 when he played ss every day? how did that compare to the rest of the league that year?

kermittheefrog
01-23-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
i'm curious, what was jose's range stat in 2000 when he played ss every day? how did that compare to the rest of the league that year?

Last year his range factor was 5.11 second in the majors only to Felix Martinez.

Soxboyrob
01-23-2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Randar68

Over 162 games, at these rates, Manos gets 155.52 more balls then Royce...
At their career Fielding percentages, over the course of a full season:
Royce: 743.58 chances * .971 career Fielding % at SS = 722.01618 outs, 21.5 errors
Jose: 899.1 chances * .956 career Fielding % at SS = 859.5396 outs, 39.56 errors
I think it's painfully obvious how much more valuable Jose is at SS then Royce, even defensively! 137.52342 more outs per season...

I think it's painfully obvious that you're using a very small sample size for Jose. What did he play, 20 games at SS last year? Why don't you use a sample size of Manos' last 3 years? Or 5 years? Every set of stats I've looked into (and I've looked at lots and lots) show that careerwise, Royce has a range factor as good or better than Manos. Most also show that Royce is well above the league average and often among the leaders in chances per game. The original post in this thread CLEARLY demonstrates that he's NOT BUDDY LEE, yet people on this board continue to perpetuate the myth that Clayton's got no range. YES, the numbers over the last 2 years show Valentin's range as being higher than that of Clayton's for playing SS, but that's about it. We all know that Val is the overall better Shortstop based on his offense and yada yada yada. Nobody is really disputing that, nor are they really disputing that Val appears to have taken over in the range department in recent years. But Clayton clearly has better than average range for a shortstop. I'm not even convinced that Jose's sudden surge in Range factor isn't just a statistical anomaly, since my recent visit to Stats, Inc's defensive stats site on AOL showed that Clayton had better numbers at SS than Jose for almost every year of his career for the Chances/162 games, DP's/162 games and errors/162 games.

FarWestChicago
01-23-2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
The original post in this thread CLEARLY demonstrates that he's NOT BUDDY LEE, yet people on this board continue to perpetuate the myth that Clayton's got no range.Use your eyes to watch him play instead using them for reading. Believe what you see. He is Buddy Lee. :smile:

Soxboyrob
01-23-2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Use your eyes to watch him play instead using them for reading. Believe what you see. He is Buddy Lee. :smile:

Well, that was originally my point. I tend to like making judgements on peoples' abilities based on what I see on the field, but people want to keep pointing to the stats. Stats don't lie. They say that careerwise, Royce gets to more balls. They say that careerwise, Royce has a better Rangefactor. They say that on the rare occasion that Jose actually had a better range factor than Clayton(5.12 in 2000), that Royce had a 4.90, which isn't all that far off of what Jose did that year. 2000 looks like an anomaly to me. I watch all of the games and find that Clayton is a fine defensive(and I stress, "defensive") shortstop w/ decent range. If you are going to argue that he has no range, why not explain how and why the stats don't apply to Clayton in this argument.

RichH55
01-23-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


Well, that was originally my point. I tend to like making judgements on peoples' abilities based on what I see on the field, but people want to keep pointing to the stats. Stats don't lie. They say that careerwise, Royce gets to more balls. They say that careerwise, Royce has a better Rangefactor. They say that on the rare occasion that Jose actually had a better range factor than Clayton(5.12 in 2000), that Royce had a 4.90, which isn't all that far off of what Jose did that year. 2000 looks like an anomaly to me. I watch all of the games and find that Clayton is a fine defensive(and I stress, "defensive") shortstop w/ decent range. If you are going to argue that he has no range, why not explain how and why the stats don't apply to Clayton in this argument.

I would think here that more recent stats are more important than career...though Jose's sample size might be a bit small, but his game has been alot better since he came to the Sox....the sad thing is that we can expect Royce's game to actually get worse this year...and that scares me

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Use your eyes to watch him play instead using them for reading. Believe what you see. He is Buddy Lee. :smile:

I'm frustrated, because I never really got a chance to watch Clayton play. I'll have to watch more closely this coming season.

Like I said, fielding stats don't mean a whole lot, but they're all I've got. Here's Clayton's TC/9 for 1999, 2000, 2001 -

1999 - 4.98 (TEX)
2000 - 5.03 (TEX)
2001 - 4.59 (CHA)

Was the Rangers' pitching staff more likely to induce grounders to the left side of the infield than was the Sox? Let's see what happened to Alex Rodriguez when he went from Seattle to Texas -

1999 - 4.95 (SEA)
2000 - 4.85 (SEA)
2001 - 4.84 (TEX)

So Alex Rodriguez' numbers didn't change significantly from moving to Arlington stadium. So it appears that Clayton had a pretty severe dropoff when he went to Chicago, for whatever reason. Maybe he took his offensive problems out into the field with him, or something. I don't know.

Here's Jose Valentin's numbers for the same timeframe -

1999 - 4.80 (MIL)
2000 - 5.35 (CHA)
2001 - 5.55 (CHA)

(these numbers for shortstop only)

So, Valentin not only dramatically improved offensively, but apparently improved defensively as well when he came to Chicago.

Just for kicks, I checked out how he compared, using the same matrix, with some other third basemen in the AL.

Shane Halter (DET) - 3.67
Jose Macias (DET) - 3.27
Jose Valentin (CHI) - 3.25
Tony Batista (TOR/BAL) - 3.07
Eric Chavez (OAK) - 3.00
Cal Ripken (BAL) - 2.93
David Bell (SEA) - 2.90
Corey Koskie (MIN) - 2.86
Scott Brosius (NY) - 2.85
Joe Randa (KC) - 2.85
Herbert Perry (CHA) - 2.77
Troy Glaus (ANA) - 2.64
Shea Hillenbrand (BOS) - 2.61
Travis Fryman (CLE) - 2.43

Jeff Liefer's BTW, was 2.52. It appears that something was going on in Detroit, maybe people were bunting like crazy off of Detroit pitchers or something. But in terms of range, Valentin would be an upgrade defensively over most fielders, either at third or at short.

And before anyone says anything about Perry, his TC/9 in 2000 was 3.02, so yes, Perry was slowed by injury.

bjmarte
01-23-2002, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


I'm frustrated, because I never really got a chance to watch Clayton play. I'll have to watch more closely this coming season.

Like I said, fielding stats don't mean a whole lot, but they're all I've got. Here's Clayton's TC/9 for 1999, 2000, 2001 -

1999 - 4.98 (TEX)
2000 - 5.03 (TEX)
2001 - 4.59 (CHA)

Was the Rangers' pitching staff more likely to induce grounders to the left side of the infield than was the Sox? Let's see what happened to Alex Rodriguez when he went from Seattle to Texas -

1999 - 4.95 (SEA)
2000 - 4.85 (SEA)
2001 - 4.84 (TEX)

So Alex Rodriguez' numbers didn't change significantly from moving to Arlington stadium. So it appears that Clayton had a pretty severe dropoff when he went to Chicago, for whatever reason. Maybe he took his offensive problems out into the field with him, or something. I don't know.

Here's Jose Valentin's numbers for the same timeframe -

1999 - 4.80 (MIL)
2000 - 5.35 (CHA)
2001 - 5.55 (CHA)

(these numbers for shortstop only)

So, Valentin not only dramatically improved offensively, but apparently improved defensively as well when he came to Chicago.

Just for kicks, I checked out how he compared, using the same matrix, with some other third basemen in the AL.

Shane Halter (DET) - 3.67
Jose Macias (DET) - 3.27
Jose Valentin (CHI) - 3.25
Tony Batista (TOR/BAL) - 3.07
Eric Chavez (OAK) - 3.00
Cal Ripken (BAL) - 2.93
David Bell (SEA) - 2.90
Corey Koskie (MIN) - 2.86
Scott Brosius (NY) - 2.85
Joe Randa (KC) - 2.85
Herbert Perry (CHA) - 2.77
Troy Glaus (ANA) - 2.64
Shea Hillenbrand (BOS) - 2.61
Travis Fryman (CLE) - 2.43

Jeff Liefer's BTW, was 2.52. It appears that something was going on in Detroit, maybe people were bunting like crazy off of Detroit pitchers or something. But in terms of range, Valentin would be an upgrade defensively over most fielders, either at third or at short.

And before anyone says anything about Perry, his TC/9 in 2000 was 3.02, so yes, Perry was slowed by injury.

The more recent stats have to be considered more important, especially because both of these guys have been with other teams. Compare the stats as CZ has while these player have been on the sox. Jose is clearly the better shortstop when you put them both in a WS uniform. If they both get a chance to play shortstop this year I'll bet the overall numbers will show Jose continuing to improve or staying the same and Royce getting worse or staying the same.

Wait a second, maybe I shouldn't make any more bets.

Anyway CZ, your numbers seem to favor Manos. Are you changing your position again?

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by bjmarte




Anyway CZ, your numbers seem to favor Manos. Are you changing your position again?

Nope. Note that I pointed out that Valentin is also one of the better defensive 3rd basemen in the league in terms of range. I still think he'll be great no matter where they put him.

Clayton had an off-year defensively. He'll bounce back. I'm not sold on Joe Crede. That's all I'll say on the issue.

longshot7
01-23-2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


The "a" is a simple typo - I wasn't sure how to spell it, so I just got as close as I could. I was too lazy to change it when I found out the error.

The significance of the name is far too long to get into here. Long story short, Leon Czolgosz is one of the few historical figures in which philosophy and history (my two passions) come together.

but you know that Czolgosz wasn't really an anarchist, right? He thought he was - but he wasn't - and the rest of the american anarchists were quick to tell him so at the time.

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by longshot7


but you know that Czolgosz wasn't really an anarchist, right? He thought he was - but he wasn't - and the rest of the american anarchists were quick to tell him so at the time.

Oh, I know that he wasn't very bright. It's kind of an arcane joke.

RichH55
01-23-2002, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Nope. Note that I pointed out that Valentin is also one of the better defensive 3rd basemen in the league in terms of range. I still think he'll be great no matter where they put him.

Clayton had an off-year defensively. He'll bounce back. I'm not sold on Joe Crede. That's all I'll say on the issue.



Royce did not have an off year defensively...in fact we can probably expect him to play worse next year...7 errors is much better than his norm

kermittheefrog
01-23-2002, 06:33 PM
Here's something I've noticed, over the last couple years the right side of the Sox infield has gotten a lot of chances. Even Herb Perry and his always injured hamstring put up great range factor numbers at third for the Sox so I think it's odd that Clayton a supposedly good defensive shortstop had a comparably weak range factor. Clayton's defensive rep is overrated and Jose's underrated.

Daver
01-23-2002, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by RichH55




Royce did not have an off year defensively...in fact we can probably expect him to play worse next year...7 errors is much better than his norm

If that is the best you get from Clayton then he is worse than Buddy Lee.

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Here's something I've noticed, over the last couple years the right side of the Sox infield has gotten a lot of chances. Even Herb Perry and his always injured hamstring put up great range factor numbers at third for the Sox so I think it's odd that Clayton a supposedly good defensive shortstop had a comparably weak range factor. Clayton's defensive rep is overrated and Jose's underrated.

But Clayton had good RF numbers before coming to the Sox. I still think last season was an anomaly for him defensively.

kermittheefrog
01-23-2002, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


But Clayton had good RF numbers before coming to the Sox. I still think last season was an anomaly for him defensively.

Well if he's a mediocre defensive shortstop or jsut a good one who had a bad year I really don't care. I just want him out.

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Well if he's a mediocre defensive shortstop or jsut a good one who had a bad year I really don't care. I just want him out.

Well, I found out what the difference was defensively. This is kind of interesting. Clayton was about the same in terms of getting assists - in 2000 he had 2.98 assists/9 innings played, in 2001 he had 2.95 assists/9. The dropoff came in putouts - he had 1.93 putouts/9 in 2000, 1.58 putouts/9 in 2001. I'm not sure what that means, but there you go...

And, you're just going to have to learn to live with Royce Clayton, he's not going anywhere for the time being.

kermittheefrog
01-23-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Well, I found out what the difference was defensively. This is kind of interesting. Clayton was about the same in terms of getting assists - in 2000 he had 2.98 assists/9 innings played, in 2001 he had 2.95 assists/9. The dropoff came in putouts - he had 1.93 putouts/9 in 2000, 1.58 putouts/9 in 2001. I'm not sure what that means, but there you go...

And, you're just going to have to learn to live with Royce Clayton, he's not going anywhere for the time being.

Could be from Clayton odd inability to turn the double play this year.

Daver
01-23-2002, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz




And, you're just going to have to learn to live with Royce Clayton, he's not going anywhere for the time being.

Unless I figure out a way to sneak a bow into Comiskey.

:)

czalgosz
01-23-2002, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Could be from Clayton odd inability to turn the double play this year.

If he has trouble turning the DP, that's always been there, because that would have to do with assists, right? But suddenly he's not getting the putouts that he used to. I wonder if it has to do with changing from Luis Alicea as his DP partner to Ray Durham?

Luis Alicea TC/9 (2000) - 4.96
Ray Durham TC/9 (2001) - 5.13

Nope, Durham displayed about the same range last year as Alicea did in 2000, so that's not it. I think it's the following -

The infield in 2000 for the Texas Rangers was primarily Mike Lamb and Royce Clayton and Luis Alicea.

Clayton/Lamb/Alicea combined TC/9 - 12.98

The infield in 2001 for the Chicago White Sox was primarily Jose Valentin/Herbert Perry and Royce Clayton and Ray Durham.

Clayton/(Valentin/Perry)/Durham combined TC/9 - 12.71

So, here it is - When Clayton was on the Rangers, he took on a larger part of the defensive load. Now that he's on the Sox, apparently Valentin and Durham are carrying a larger part of the load.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by daver


Unless I figure out a way to sneak a bow into Comiskey.

:)

Don't get my hopes up daver, now I'm going to be looking for the red dot on his forehead constantly. One of these days I'll see it and it will turn out to be some idiot with one of those laser pointers.

Daver
01-24-2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


Don't get my hopes up daver, now I'm going to be looking for the red dot on his forehead constantly. One of these days I'll see it and it will turn out to be some idiot with one of those laser pointers.

The dot wouldn't be on his forehead.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by daver


The dot wouldn't be on his forehead.

Let me use my imagination, it's more fun that way. :)

Randar68
01-24-2002, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob


Stats don't lie.

Nobody who knows jack about statistics would ever make this comment. Stats, under knowing hands, can be presented and manipulated to say the sky is Red, but that doesn't make it true. Stats are generally only useful in adding support to an already supported arguement....

Daver
01-24-2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Nobody who knows jack about statistics would ever make this comment. Stats, under knowing hands, can be presented and manipulated to say the sky is Red, but that doesn't make it true. Stats are generally only useful in adding support to an already supported arguement....

Amen.

Take Royce on just his stats and he is a decent player,watch him play and you see that he is Buddy Lee.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Nobody who knows jack about statistics would ever make this comment. Stats, under knowing hands, can be presented and manipulated to say the sky is Red, but that doesn't make it true. Stats are generally only useful in adding support to an already supported arguement....

Well yeah if Mr. A knows the meaning of the stats and Mr. B doesn't Mr. A can manipulate the hell out of the statistics but if they both know then Mr. B will see through Mr. A's shenanigans. And ha! I worked the word shananigans into my post!

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Well yeah if Mr. A knows the meaning of the stats and Mr. B doesn't Mr. A can manipulate the hell out of the statistics but if they both know then Mr. B will see through Mr. A's shenanigans. And ha! I worked the word shananigans into my post!

In davers situation you don't need to know the meaning of the stats, all you have to do is look up.

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


In davers situation you don't need to know the meaning of the stats, all you have to do is look up.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

FarWestChicago
01-24-2002, 02:08 AM
Originally posted by daver


What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm just as confused as you are. :?:

CLR01
01-24-2002, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I'm just as confused as you are. :?:


Throw me into that mix.

kermittheefrog
01-24-2002, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I'm just as confused as you are. :?:

Maybe he's saying that an anvil is about to be dropped on Daver's head and if he doesn't look up soon he'll be in some trouble.

CLR01
01-24-2002, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Maybe he's saying that an anvil is about to be dropped on Daver's head and if he doesn't look up soon he'll be in some trouble.


I was thinking a teleprompter or cue card with all the answers.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by daver


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I meant to say Randars situation:

Originally posted by Randar68


Nobody who knows jack about statistics would ever make this comment. Stats, under knowing hands, can be presented and manipulated to say the sky is Red, but that doesn't make it true. Stats are generally only useful in adding support to an already supported arguement....

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


OK I may be a dumb redneck but I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by daver


OK I may be a dumb redneck but I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

If someone is using statistics to tell you the sky is red you don't need to understand the statistics to know he is wrong. All you have to do is look up at the sky.

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


If someone is using statistics to tell you the sky is red you don't need to understand the statistics to know he is wrong. All you have to do is look up at the sky.

OK I get it now.Sorry I'm just a dumb redneck.

bjmarte
01-24-2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by daver


OK I get it now.Sorry I'm just a dumb redneck.

I wouldn't say that. And not just because I don't want to see any red dots near me.

Daver
01-24-2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by bjmarte


I wouldn't say that. And not just because I don't want to see any red dots near me.

The world is full of people with laser pointers.Mine just works better than most.