View Single Post
04-03-2012, 08:13 PM
Lafleurs Guy
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 28,453
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Yah, it did. Gomez ended up being on the ice for about as many goals for as Plekanec, but couldn't get points for them. He didn't manage to collect second assists, notably, which was almost as freakish as his inability to get a goal but didn't get nearly as much attention. His first-assist total is perfectly in line with what little icetime he's had.

More importantly, he also had four different injuries, which do affect performance.
Wow, I guess he's just the unluckiest player in the history of the game. Well, excluding his linemates. Anytime anyone was paired with him they were screwed but uh, I guess that's just luck.

Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
And yet again: points total is a very broad-brushed metric that hides any number of important factors and completely ignores half the game. Point totals tell us that Kaberle is a much better player than Josh Gorges and that Mark Streit is way more valuable than Drew Doughty.
No doubt. You can't just look at points to measure a player, never said you should.

I said that point totals can't be ignored when you're looking at a players' offensive ability and that it certainly was a better predictor of future offensive performance than CORSI is. I don't see how this is really disputable in light of the leaders of that particular stat.
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Sigh. I've had this argument with you before. Oh, the particulars change, but it's basically always the same structure. You have an assumption that you believe to be impeachably correct. The assumption is challenged. You defend the assumption by asserting the assumption without support and dismissing all opposite facts because they contradict the assumption. In reality, you've not actually done anything but put window-dressing on the fact that you believe you're right simply because you're right. And yet another promising thread has devolved in this futility.
I've laid out objections that you have ignored man. Ignoring them doesn't mean they aren't valid. Again, when I look at those CORSI leaders, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with them. If Grabvowski is number one... what am I supposed to do with this? It might tell me that he's a little better than I thought he was but not much else.

Originally Posted by Roke View Post
Exclusively? Not even close. The A's still employed scouts, they still used scouting and video work. Beane may not have watched his team play games but they had staff doing that, watching other teams play, and writing scouting reports.

I also don't recall him firing half the team sometime between 2001 and 2002 (2002 was the year where they had the 20 game win streak).

The 2001 A's lost a lot of talent to free agency (Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada, Johnny Damon, and if you overvalue closers like most people still do Jason Isringhausen) but the 2001 team won 102 games and made the playoffs. The 2000 A's won 91 games and made the playoffs.

The teams before 2002 were hardly disasters.
Never said they were. Dude, I'm actually a baseball fan. I REMEMBER the A's losing Jason Giambi.
I was talking about JEREMY Giambi. The guy they brought in the next season.

And actually YES, he did tell his scouting group to go jump in the lake. Grady Huson (head scout) left the club out of frustration and was out there on the air ripping into Beane once he assembled that disastrouts start where they were starting to get blown out every night.

Yes, Paul DePodesta kept telling Beane to be patient and in the film specifically says there will be a regression to the mean and told Beane to stay patient. The team continued to suck and guys like Jeremy Giambi couldn't have cared less. THAT'S when Beane ripped apart the team. THAT club went on to have the 20 game win streak and make the playoffs - in the SAME season. That's what was so crazy about it.
Originally Posted by SaskRinkRat View Post
This comment leads me to believe that maybe you didn't watch the movie closely enough (and certainly didn't read the book). The first half of the movie was essentially spent describing this whole concept of "regression to the mean" that MathMan has been talking about. The team was "built with a spreadsheet", as you put it, but the results predicted in the spreadsheet weren't manifesting on the field. It's not that the spreadsheet was wrong (i.e., it's not that the wrong stats were taken into account when evaluating the players), it's that those stats weren't being produced during the early part of the year due to small sample size.

Eventually, the team's performance regressed to the mean (i.e., reverted to what the spreadsheet predicted) and they won the division.
That's right... they did talk about regression to the mean. Only it never happened. It didn't happen until Beane ripped apart the club after a losing streak where they were getting blown out almost every night. He replaced a lot of cancerous players with other guys. THEN the team took off.

I'm not trying to say that Beane didn't use SABR... of course he did. I"m just saying that he learned that scouting does play more of a role than he thought it did.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote