and we pitched to Byrnes why?

he's officially reached girardi status

he's officially reached girardi status

well atleast he ain't bunting in the first inning

Fredi Gonzalez look like having bad rokkie season .he need look at all things done and mistake he done

with a young talented team why have the Marlins front office hired two rookie managers??? Why not get someone with experience??

with a young talented team why have the Marlins front office hired two rookie managers??? Why not get someone with experience??

$$$

good point

Most of all, remember that there's not a statistic out there that will tell you who the best pitcher/batter is.

False.

 

WARP3 is a great "catch-all" tool that can tell you have many wins above a AAA player a player has been worth in any given year. Win Shares is another one. Good old OPS+ can do a pretty good job of telling you who the best hitter is.

 

If a pitcher has a low era and a high WHIP that doesn't mean he's not having a good year, it just means that he's due to see his ERA rise.

You stats guys are something else. LOL

 

Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?

For...

You get the idea.

 

I think it was Mark Twain who said, "There are 3 kinds of lies. A lie. A damn lie. And a stat."

 

Posts made using statistics are more enlightening than the 2-3 sentence ramblings we get from the "see with their eyes" crowd. If you were a scout, the opinion on "what you see with your eyes" would be worth a sh*t. But since no one on here is a scout, those posts should be greatly discouraged. Those posts only 1) make you look dumb 2) make the board look dumb.

 

Enlightening discussion > all other discussion

 

Statistics don't lie, they tell a non-biased story. If you want to disregard them with the usual " :lol stat head" posts, you're only hurting your development of the understanding of the game and adding nothing to the discussion.

 

Read SonsOfSamHorn.com and NYYFans.com.

 

SOSH is mostly a stat site. NYYFans are the "see with your eyes" crowd. Huge difference in content.

 

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team. Real live baseball is far different than fantasy baseball. Deal with it.

Stats do lie. They can be used to tell any story you want them to. Numbers are continually twisted and turned to say whatever the poster wants them to. And especially with young players that are basically still honeing their skills. Using just stats and exaggerated faults, "1.)make you look dumb 2.)make the board look dumb." Add if the fact that most posters here continually exaggerate the faults and ignore the pluses of certain players and you have a very lop sided view.

You want to have a difference of opinion? Fine. You want to start with the name calling? That's another thing. You don't like my views? Just don't read them. I have no problem at all with that.

 

I love your condescending tone as you dig a nice little hole in the sand to put your head in to block out all of the nasty stats. "I don't need no computers to tell me how to play baseball. What do computers know about baseball?"

 

There is a difference between fantasy baseball and using statistics to judge and compare different players. If you can't see that then there's no point even trying to discuss anything with you. Try getting out of your high tower and stop dismissing things you don't understand out of hand.

 

Not on any high tower. Simply expressing my opinion. And who says I don't undertand stats? There is a difference in using stats to over analyze a situation, and especially after the fact, to make yourself look like some kind of baseball god, or as you put it being on a high horse. And then stats that are so, um, controversial in their exact worth in any given situation. That was the point of my original post. Sorry if it went over your head.

Wanna talk about condescending tones??? Why be so hypocritical? Stats have a use in baseball, but I feel more comfortable with gut feelings at different times instead of strictly going with the stats. One reason why I really liked Trader Jack. Numerous times he was quoted as saying he didn't go with stats alot of times and instead went with his gut.

I love how you make it an either/or thing. Like we're either scouring the internet for stats OR we're watching the games. Maybe you don't realize it, but we watch the games too. However, we're not arrogant enough to think that we can formulate a complete opinion based solely on our observations. You go to the games and watch these kids progress. Congratulations! So do the stat heads. Moreover, the idea that you're going to go solely by what your eyes tells you is just intellectual laziness mixed in with a good dose of naivete. Forgive me I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine how you are able to watch every single major league game AND be the only individual on the planet not subject to memory flaws like confirmation bias and the peak-end rule that psychology says EVERYONE has. I mean if you're the exception, more power to you. Unfortunately, I'm not in possession of a photographic memory or a time machine, so I have to rely on a computer. On the plus side, it's probably cheaper and easier to maintain.

 

As for the point that stats lie because they can be twisted and turned to suit one's need, no one is denying that CERTAIN statistics are less useful than others. The problem that you seem to have is that you make the huge assumption that all statistics are intended to answer the same question or are considered equally useful. Take a statistic like batting average, that's a very useful statistic is someone asks, "How often does Player X get a hit?" Now, if someone asks "How good is Player X," batting average is a really bad statistic to use. Admittedly, some people misrepresent statistics, use the wrong ones, and don't really comprehend the importance of statistical concepts like confidence intervals and sample size. That's why I appreciate posts like Ensam's which appropriately question whether more relevant statistics can be used. However, are you going to tell me that judgments made from observations are not just as likely, if not more so, to be misrepresented and overgeneralized? Reggie Abercrombie hit a monster HR last year in RFK. If someone came to the conclusion, "Whoa! Abercrombie must be awesome" based solely on that at-bat, he'd be tragically wrong. Now, based on your line of reasoning, I can't have faith in judgments I make from what I see because some people come to really dumb conclusions based on what they see.

 

Another thing, I find it really funny that you accuse stat people of exaggerating faults and ignoring pluses when the entire stat movement basically started because traditional scouting was doing just that. "Player X sucks; he strikes out too much" is a common statement made by people who don't rely on statistics. This is an exaggeration of faults because, as people like bobbob have mentioned time and again, strikeouts are no different than a pop fly or ground out 90-95% of the time. It's things like this and the fact that front offices seem to be filled with people who buy into this crap that a player like Adam Dunn probably won't get paid his true value. As for the ignoring of plusses, how about the fact that most front offices were really behind the curve on the importance of on-base percentage. Moneyball is an entire book about a team that picked up undervalued players because teams that follow your approach ignored their valuable skill sets. So please, spare me the generalizations.

 

Actually I wasn't making it an eithor or thing. You are just taking it that way. Read on and maybe you will see.

Not on any high tower. Simply expressing my opinion. And who says I don't undertand stats? There is a difference in using stats to over analyze a situation, and especially after the fact, to make yourself look like some kind of baseball god, or as you put it being on a high horse. And then stats that are so, um, controversial in their exact worth in any given situation. That was the point of my original post. Sorry if it went over your head.

Wanna talk about condescending tones??? Why be so hypocritical? Stats have a use in baseball, but I feel more comfortable with gut feelings at different times instead of strictly going with the stats. One reason why I really liked Trader Jack. Numerous times he was quoted as saying he didn't go with stats alot of times and instead went with his gut.

 

McKeon was one of the worst managers in the bigs. He's a great personality, and he is really good at getting the most out of his players, but as far as his in game management and his lineup construction, he wasn't very good at all. The only positive I can give him is that he handled the pitchers much better than Girardi and Fredi did or have. But if McKeon's the one you want to hang your hat on for "gut feeling" then you're not going to convince many people.

 

What stats are controversial in their worth? Something that anyone with half a brain can tell is useless like CERA or Pitching Wins or Batting average are controversial. But real stats that actually tell you something are only controversial because people refuse to open themselves to knew ideas.

 

You keep on making the same assumption, that people are only judging the game based on statistics. This is false. I've watched the majority of Marlins games this year, and I've found that, generally the opinions I've formed based on watching the team are true and backed up by the statistics I use to value players (i.e. Uggla is immensely valuable despite his problems with RISP, Hermida isn't as bad as he appears at times, Amezaga is way overrated by many including rich and Tommy). Does this mean I'm forming my opinions after the fact, or that my opinions tend to go along with my line of thinking, which tends to go along with the statistical analysts?

the only real problem I have with Fredi (besides the fact they are giving Hermida the Milledge treatment) is that he is way too intimidated by the media

 

I had lunch with someone today who said that really is the only thing the FO is put off about right now

 

Fredi is used to coaching minor leaguers and in the minors you don't really go to the media or throw blame around

 

up in the show is a different story

 

See your point. And it's nice to get back on topic. Fredi seems to look comfortable talking to the media. Has since his hiring and FanFest. But I suppose that could be the personna(sp) that he wants to project.

However, I do disagree with the way you ended the thought. I don't think at any level do you throw a player/collegue to the wolves. At least that's what it looks like you are saying. I prefer things handled in house and damn the media.

Not on any high tower. Simply expressing my opinion. And who says I don't undertand stats? There is a difference in using stats to over analyze a situation, and especially after the fact, to make yourself look like some kind of baseball god, or as you put it being on a high horse. And then stats that are so, um, controversial in their exact worth in any given situation. That was the point of my original post. Sorry if it went over your head.

Wanna talk about condescending tones??? Why be so hypocritical? Stats have a use in baseball, but I feel more comfortable with gut feelings at different times instead of strictly going with the stats. One reason why I really liked Trader Jack. Numerous times he was quoted as saying he didn't go with stats alot of times and instead went with his gut.

 

McKeon was one of the worst managers in the bigs. He's a great personality, and he is really good at getting the most out of his players, but as far as his in game management and his lineup construction, he wasn't very good at all. The only positive I can give him is that he handled the pitchers much better than Girardi and Fredi did or have. But if McKeon's the one you want to hang your hat on for "gut feeling" then you're not going to convince many people.

 

What stats are controversial in their worth? Something that anyone with half a brain can tell is useless like CERA or Pitching Wins or Batting average are controversial. But real stats that actually tell you something are only controversial because people refuse to open themselves to knew ideas.

 

You keep on making the same assumption, that people are only judging the game based on statistics. This is false. I've watched the majority of Marlins games this year, and I've found that, generally the opinions I've formed based on watching the team are true and backed up by the statistics I use to value players (i.e. Uggla is immensely valuable despite his problems with RISP, Hermida isn't as bad as he appears at times, Amezaga is way overrated by many including rich and Tommy). Does this mean I'm forming my opinions after the fact, or that my opinions tend to go along with my line of thinking, which tends to go along with the statistical analysts?

 

Not solely using Jack that way. Just popped into my head and because of the winning records and Championship he brought us. I believe Leyland was also alot more into gut feelings than just following stats. Maybe it's just an old school vs new school thing.

And again, missing the point of the original post. Over analyzing a play or series of plays after the fact. I made an observation and pointed out other stats that weren't brought into the thinking and everyone went haywire. Presumably because I refused to recognize their self appointed genius of arm chair managing. Even back handedly comparing me to NYY fans.

Not solely using Jack that way. Just popped into my head and because of the winning records and Championship he brought us. I believe Leyland was also alot more into gut feelings than just following stats. Maybe it's just an old school vs new school thing.

And again, missing the point of the original post. Over analyzing a play or series of plays after the fact. I made an observation and pointed out other stats that weren't brought into the thinking and everyone went haywire. Presumably because I refused to recognize their self appointed genius of arm chair managing. Even back handedly comparing me to NYY fans.

 

Explain to me what your point was, then.

 

"Did you figure out all these stats when he hits indoors vs outdoors?

Day games vs night games?

Per state and then by team?

For each pitcher he has faced?

For each starting pitcher he has faced?

For each pen pitcher he has faced?"

 

What does that have to do with the original point, which was that Fredi should have had Olivo bunting despite the fact that Olivo isn't extremely likely to hit into a double play. Your post was simply put there to ruffle people's feathers, and you can't deny that. Saying things like "You stat guys are something else. LOL" is a pointless and unnecesary statement, as was your whole post. Did you honestly expect people to let that go? You came off as condescending and you didn't add anything to the convseration other than to put people down.

I love how you make it an either/or thing. Like we're either scouring the internet for stats OR we're watching the games. Maybe you don't realize it, but we watch the games too. However, we're not arrogant enough to think that we can formulate a complete opinion based solely on our observations. You go to the games and watch these kids progress. Congratulations! So do the stat heads...

Actually I wasn't making it an eithor or thing. You are just taking it that way. Read on and maybe you will see.

Here's exactly what you wrote (Emphasis added):

You keep right up with those stats. I need a good laugh every morning. I'll just keep going to the games and watch these kids progress. Alot more is seen that way than just watching the stats and complaining certain players aren't helping your fantasy team.

How that can be construed as anything other than an either/or thing is beyond me. However, you seem to disagree; so, just how am I supposed to interpret a phrase like "Alot more is seen that way that just watching the stats?"

Most of all, remember that there's not a statistic out there that will tell you who the best pitcher/batter is.

False.

 

WARP3 is a great "catch-all" tool that can tell you have many wins above a AAA player a player has been worth in any given year. Win Shares is another one. Good old OPS+ can do a pretty good job of telling you who the best hitter is.

 

If a pitcher has a low era and a high WHIP that doesn't mean he's not having a good year, it just means that he's due to see his ERA rise.

To measure offense you may want to stick to OBP, SLG, RISP OBP, RISP SLG and then throw in a touch of games played and / or PAs to take durability into account.

 

You don't need to go into these ridiculous stats with really cool names that don't really measure what the really cool names say they do. Look past the really cool names and look at the damn formulas.

he's officially reached girardi status

well atleast he ain't bunting in the first inning

I don't know the firts inning numbers but innings 1 - 6 we're on pace for 66 bunts.. last year we had 44.

the only real problem I have with Fredi (besides the fact they are giving Hermida the Milledge treatment) is that he is way too intimidated by the media

 

I had lunch with someone today who said that really is the only thing the FO is put off about right now

 

Fredi is used to coaching minor leaguers and in the minors you don't really go to the media or throw blame around

 

up in the show is a different story

 

See your point. And it's nice to get back on topic. Fredi seems to look comfortable talking to the media. Has since his hiring and FanFest. But I suppose that could be the personna(sp) that he wants to project.

However, I do disagree with the way you ended the thought. I don't think at any level do you throw a player/collegue to the wolves. At least that's what it looks like you are saying. I prefer things handled in house and damn the media.

I meant instead of saying "things will work themselves out with the strikeouts".... saying something like "yea, the strikeouts are a problem and it's something we need to work on"

 

(not that I am turning this into a debate on strikeouts)

he's officially reached girardi status

 

I really wanted to like Fredi. I still do. But some of his decisions just piss me off.

 

I'd take Girardi back. And I am not the only one who feels this way too.

As much as I dislike Fredi, I still hated Girardi more but I think I've come to terms that I will never like a manager

 

they all piss off their fans

My problem with Girardi was that I truly believes he cost us games in some of his decisions, particularly in the first two months of last season. And, while the play of the team improved (as did his managing) over the course of the season, I never forgave him for putting our team in a hole that we could never climb out.

 

I question a lot of Fredi's moves, but I cannot honestly point to more than a few situations that his managing might have actually cost us the game. This year, we are just not playing well as a team. Our starting pitching has been horrendous since day one, and I do not put that on Fredi. And, I don't blame our injuries on him either.

 

Fredi has not been stellar, but the calls for Girardi's return are laughable. Casey Stengel couldn't turn this ship around.

And in Fredi's defense, he hasn't been playing with a full deck of cards all year

 

Hermida, Kensing, Martinez, Johnson, Sanchez, Nolasco, Owens, Ross have all been hurt at one point or another and while this doesn't directly affect the moves he makes in game, it certainly makes it harder to overcome if he does make a perceived bad move

"Terrible" manager Girardi will have a long managerial career in MLB.. nice guy media buddy Fredi will be fired within a year never to manage again... that was my prediction weeks ago and I'm sticking to it.

with a young talented team why have the Marlins front office hired two rookie managers??? Why not get someone with experience??

 

Because we have retarded ownership that has no business running a baseball franchise.

My problem with Girardi was that I truly believes he cost us games in some of his decisions, particularly in the first two months of last season. And, while the play of the team improved (as did his managing) over the course of the season, I never forgave him for putting our team in a hole that we could never climb out.

 

I question a lot of Fredi's moves, but I cannot honestly point to more than a few situations that his managing might have actually cost us the game. This year, we are just not playing well as a team. Our starting pitching has been horrendous since day one, and I do not put that on Fredi. And, I don't blame our injuries on him either.

 

Fredi has not been stellar, but the calls for Girardi's return are laughable. Casey Stengel couldn't turn this ship around.

 

With all due respect, that's crazy talk.

 

You've shown time and again that you have a pretty good grasp of what's going on, but the problem with Girardi and Gonzalez is tremendously different. Girardi, for much of last year, was a "by the book" manager. He yanked the starters early, attempted to set up matchups and, more or less, attempted to work to the other team's weaknesses. The only unorthodox move he pulled was bunting with Uggla after a Hanley double to lead off the game, but that IS a Torre move (and I believe Uggla commented that he did that on his own more than once). Girardi's other problem was that he, like Torre, trusted the bullpen too much, and that the bullpen was subpar. I recall 4 straight games we lost with a lead in the 8th inning. I also recall an incomprehensible amount of games lost in the 7th inning by a bullpen arm.

 

Fredi's problem is that he manages with, for lack of a better word, guts, and quite often, misguided guts. He doesn't pinch hit for a starter in the 5th inning in a scoring opportunity when the starter is struggling, and that costs us. Fredi sticks with rotation pitchers almost to a fault. There are too many times, at least I've noticed, where he allowes a starter to go back out with over 90 pitches, and doesn't have anyone warming up at the first sign of trouble. That leads to big innings more often than not, and it's the fault of the manager for not identifying trends.

 

I could go on about his lineup construction mirroring a little league coach, where he has his top hitters hitting 1-4, and just a hodge-podge of the rest, rather than a lineup that compliments itself. I could go on about his inability to motivate or focus a team, or his ostrich syndrome, but those have been played out.

 

The simple conclusion is that Girardi's style of managing the pitching staff, more often that not, leads to more success than Fredi's manner. Girardi's was misguided because it put too much faith in the players' ability to succeed despite their struggles. Fredi's directly leads to big innings because he ignores axioms for pitching with ANY pitcher.