Any sports fans here? [Archive]

SRVcardsfan27

01-11-2009, 10:27 AM

If so, what sports do you like and do you have any favorite teams?

I enjoy football, baseball, and tennis.

I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan in baseball, and in football, I've always been a huge Kurt Warner fan, so right now my interest is with the Arizona Cardinals though I have no real team.

I've recently started playing tennis and it has taken over baseball as my favorite sport to play. I can even watch tennis now and keep amusement.

Anyone deep into sports statistics, or remembering all of the leaders in certain statistical categories (i.e. RBI leaders, touchdown leaders, goal leaders, etc.)?

redbaren

01-11-2009, 11:04 AM

I love Football, and I love the Dallas Cowboys....... : (

ArkansasFan

01-11-2009, 11:21 AM

I like baseball although I don't follow it. I really like NFL, and I love college football.

Freedom Geek

01-11-2009, 12:09 PM

Not me, quite the opposite in fact (unless you count chess and similar...).

eastman

01-11-2009, 12:39 PM

die hard Philadelphia sports fan

EA-GL-ES "EAGLES!!!"

SRVcardsfan27

01-11-2009, 01:17 PM

die hard Philadelphia sports fan

EA-GL-ES "EAGLES!!!"

Cardinals and Eagles in the NFC Championship! Going to be a good one.

Synamon

01-11-2009, 01:18 PM

die hard Philadelphia sports fan

EA-GL-ES "EAGLES!!!"

They just kicked the Giants all over the field. Might not get by the Cardinals next week though.

Sunshine

01-11-2009, 03:19 PM

I love Football, and I love the Dallas Cowboys....... : (
Wow, I thought I had it bad being a Redskins fan. Nothing worse than being a Cowgirls fan though ; )

putupon

01-12-2009, 03:59 PM

Pretty crazy weekend. Looking forward to Ravens/Steelers, but Cards haven't got a prayer.

SRVcardsfan27

01-12-2009, 05:20 PM

but Cards haven't got a prayer.

How is that? Are you basing that off the Thanksgiving game?

If so:

1. The Cardinals traveled on 3 days rest 2000 miles
2. They just got physically bashed by the Giants and were battered.
3. Hood and Wilson were injured and did not play that game.
4. Donovan McNabb was pissed off because of the benching/media all over him.
5. The Cardinals played on the road, on the east coast in freezing temp.
6. They had no running game
7. They had no defense

Now, they have that fever in them, and the defense has completely changed. They have a running game now with Edge and Arrington, and they have been playing championship caliber football for 3 weeks. Not to mention they are playing at home, where they are an elite team (save the Minnesota game, but they clinched the division two weeks prior to that game and lost motivation).

They are a completely different team now and are on a mission.... And also out to prove everyone wrong.

They will be in the Super Bowl.

putupon

01-12-2009, 08:08 PM

How is that? Are you basing that off the Thanksgiving game?

Nope. They're a lot better now than they were then. So are the Eagles.

I like Arizona. Like Warner, like the coach, Fitzgerald's amazing, etc. I'd be happy to see them advance.

But I think the Eagles D will get to Warner, and though Edge has played well lately I don't trust him.

McNabb, Dawkins, Westbrook all look like they want it. Arizona may be on a mission, but so is Philly and I think they'll win.

Mozzes

01-12-2009, 08:13 PM

I love Football, and I love the Dallas Cowboys....... : (

I'm sorry.

SRVcardsfan27

01-12-2009, 08:28 PM

Nope. They're a lot better now than they were then. So are the Eagles.

I like Arizona. Like Warner, like the coach, Fitzgerald's amazing, etc. I'd be happy to see them advance.

But I think the Eagles D will get to Warner, and though Edge has played well lately I don't trust him.

McNabb, Dawkins, Westbrook all look like they want it. Arizona may be on a mission, but so is Philly and I think they'll win.

They'll definitely put pressure on Warner all day, but he was also by far the most hit QB in the NFL this year, and his passer rating against the blitz this year is 116.0, the highest of any QB.

I think the Eagles' offense is going to get shut down pretty mightily. I see McNabb with 2-3 INT and Westbrook with about 40 rushing yards.

I see Arizona winning 27-16.

erosore

01-12-2009, 08:37 PM

My family lives in AZ so I'm pulling for the cards.

tombrisbane

01-13-2009, 02:41 AM

Yep: Cricket, NFL (Giants! though lets not talk about them right now...), Soccer & Baseball (Dodgers!)

LaoTzu

01-13-2009, 07:32 PM

Da'Bears Fan.... been over 20 years and they still haven't found a decent qb :(

I am also obliged to enjoy the NHL, otherwise I'd have to turn in my citizenship. I only watch the playoffs though.

Perf

01-13-2009, 09:34 PM

I'm a hockey fan, being from Canada and all. My favourite team's the St.Louis Blues though. Also a wrestling fan, which I as a wrestling fan will call a sport. I also like Curling as this is our form of baseball. Football appeals only when it's the playoffs (go Ravens!).

Harmony

01-14-2009, 07:35 AM

Football - Carolina Panthers (I refuse to be a Colts fan, don't care if I am from Indiana!)
Baseball - Detroit Tigers

I'm not all that into basketball, but if PennState is playing I'll watch their games.

SRVcardsfan27

01-14-2009, 07:23 PM

Football - Carolina Panthers (I refuse to be a Colts fan, don't care if I am from Indiana!)
Baseball - Detroit Tigers

Well, my (Kurt Warner) Arizona Cardinals demolished your Panthers last week, and my St. Louis Cardinals dismantled the Tigers in the World Series 2 years ago!

Just giving you flack, of course.

Harmony

01-15-2009, 05:35 AM

Well, my (Kurt Warner) Arizona Cardinals demolished your Panthers last week, and my St. Louis Cardinals dismantled the Tigers in the World Series 2 years ago!

Just giving you flack, of course.

Yeah, I don't even want to talk about that stupid game.... I want to kick Delhomme in the nuts again... I'm still bitter from Super Bowl several years back.....

And I like the Cards too, it's a day trip for me to catch one of their games. =P

SeaCzar

01-15-2009, 10:26 AM

The NFC? Puhleese!! You mean the JV. For real football, its the AFC. Go Ravens!!

SRVcardsfan27

01-15-2009, 06:35 PM

The NFC? Puhleese!! You mean the JV. For real football, its the AFC. Go Ravens!!

Maybe in recent years, but the NFC this year has come alive. The NFC South had the most wins of any division in the NFL, and while both West divisions were garbage, the Chargers were the only team to make it in the playoffs without a winning record.

SRVcardsfan27

01-18-2009, 03:49 PM

....And the Arizona Cardinals are Super Bowl bound!

INTJoe

01-18-2009, 03:55 PM

SRVcardsfan27

01-18-2009, 08:55 PM

Awesome game. FWIW, on another forum I post on I predicted they'd win 30-27. They won 32-25....PRETTY GOOD PREDICTION IF I MUST SAY SO!!! lol.

Warner and Fitz totally owned. It will be funny when the Philly fans inexplicably accuse McNabb of choking.

I predict BaLtimore wins this one 17-13.

Well, looks like it'll be a match-up of the No. 1 defense and the No. 2 offense in the Super Bowl. I think this game is going to come down to Pittsburgh's offense. If Big Ben doesn't screw it up, they win, but if he does (which I think he will), they lose.

I'd say Arizona wins it 23-21.

And yes, Philly will be calling for McNabb's head, even though he's the one who brought them back.

By the way, Joe, I noticed you like baseball. Who's your team and how long have you been a fan?

Mozzes

01-18-2009, 09:08 PM

Well, looks like it'll be a match-up of the No. 1 defense and the No. 2 offense in the Super Bowl. I think this game is going to come down to Pittsburgh's offense. If Big Ben doesn't screw it up, they win, but if he does (which I think he will), they lose.

I'd say Arizona wins it 23-21.

And yes, Philly will be calling for McNabb's head, even though he's the one who brought them back.

By the way, Joe, I noticed you like baseball. Who's your team and how long have you been a fan?

McNabb should jump on the next train out of Philly. He deserves better than those bums.

INTJoe

01-19-2009, 10:06 AM

By the way, Joe, I noticed you like baseball. Who's your team and how long have you been a fan?

You won't like my answer. I'm an Astros fan, but my interest is waning, as long as the F.O. keeps ****ing up the team and making poor decisions.

I know you're a Cards fan. I was born and raised in STL; grew up a typical die-hard Cardinal fan (although the early-to-mid 90s were the lean years. lol "Torre".). Moved to Houston in 1995 and fell in love "with a new woman".

The 2004 and 2005 NLCSes were pretty intense for me!

Mozzes

01-19-2009, 11:31 AM

You won't like my answer. I'm an Astros fan, but my interest is waning, as long as the F.O. keeps ****ing up the team and making poor decisions.

I know you're a Cards fan. I was born and raised in STL; grew up a typical die-hard Cardinal fan (although the early-to-mid 90s were the lean years. lol "Torre".). Moved to Houston in 1995 and fell in love "with a new woman".

The 2004 and 2005 NLCSes were pretty intense for me!

You want to talk about lean years? I was born in Fort Worth and have been a Texas Rangers fan for the last 15 years. :embarassed:

SRVcardsfan27

01-19-2009, 01:22 PM

The 2004 and 2005 NLCSes were pretty intense for me!

Those were amazing. Especially 2004 when it came down to the wire. All of those games had me on the edge of my seat. I'm just glad Clemens choked and gave up the homer to Rolen.

'05 was pretty intense, too, and of course it was basically the end of Lidge's career for 3 years.

INTJoe

01-19-2009, 01:47 PM

'05 was pretty intense, too, and of course it was basically the end of Lidge's career for 3 years.

Sigh...not another idiot who thinks Pujols "broke" Lidge. I've had this debate like 9,383 times on various fora. I wanted to like you. You're a Missouri native and SRV fan.

Lidge had a little over 1 bad year (2005 playoffs, 2006, and very beginning of 2007), not "3". His ERA+ was 84 in 2006, which is bad, with a 1.40 WHIP. Every other year it was at least 131, which is good.

His ERA+ was 225 in 2008, and he came in 4th in the Cy Young voting, not to mention he won a ring and has now been to 2 World Series. His WHIP in '07 was 1.25 and 1.22 in '08.

Nice "end" to a currently-thriving career as a top 3 closer in the game.

geGamedev

01-19-2009, 02:23 PM

The more "typical" sports bore me. Martial arts on the other hand...

SRVcardsfan27

01-19-2009, 03:15 PM

Sigh...not another idiot who thinks Pujols "broke" Lidge. I've had this debate like 9,383 times on various fora. I wanted to like you. You're a Missouri native and SRV fan.

Lidge had a little over 1 bad year (2005 playoffs, 2006, and very beginning of 2007), not "3". His ERA+ was 84 in 2006, which is bad, with a 1.40 WHIP. Every other year it was at least 131, which is good.

His ERA+ was 225 in 2008, and he came in 4th in the Cy Young voting, not to mention he won a ring and has now been to 2 World Series. His WHIP in '07 was 1.25 and 1.22 in '08.

Nice "end" to a currently-thriving career as a top 3 closer in the game.

An idiot is something I've been called before, but not to anything baseball related. Yes, in '08 he was good. I said for three years after 2005 (although I meant 2, as I wasn't thinking correctly on the year of the 2nd NLCS on accident). 2008 is when he got back on track. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but the rest of his time in Houston, he wasn't the same. I don't know if it had anything to do with that home run, but he clearly wasn't the same for a couple years after that. The change of scenery gave him his luster back.

INTJoe

01-19-2009, 05:32 PM

Algol

01-19-2009, 05:40 PM

I would rather gouge my eyes out with a fork than watch a game of football or baseball, especially on TV. I do enjoy Tennis and Formula 1 racing though, in small doses.

SRVcardsfan27

01-19-2009, 05:53 PM

He was dominating the last half of 2007. I know, since I watched most of his outings. The F.O. traded him after 2007 because the Astros F.O. is terrible. He "got his luster back" in Houston, in mid-2007.

Please visit baseball-reference.com to review stats.

I'm reserving judgment on whether or not you're an idiot (I really doubt you are), but I get sick of idiot Cardinals fans touting that Pujols "broke" Lidge.

Pujols is on pace to go down as one of the greatest righthanded hitters in history. Through 5,200 plate appearances dude's mashing at a sick 170 OPS+. But I hate when people elevate him to some mythical figure who breaks people's soul with 1 swing. If people want to metaphorically suck off Pujols all they have to say is "5,200 plate appearances of 170 OPS+"

I visit baseball-reference.com daily. Stats are my thing. Again, it was all tongue-in-cheek. Lidge had a 3.36 ERA in 2007 along with 8 blown saves (compared to 19 saves), including 3 blown saves in the final 5 weeks. And if I remember correctly, he lost the closer role for about 2 months, so his (already high) blown saves total could have been more. He improved from his miserable 2006 season, but it wasn't above average by any means.

I can tell you enjoy statistics, and perhaps as much as me. If you ever want to talk about anything baseball related, from any era, or analyze stats and discuss, I'm your guy, and would welcome that discussion.

I was for the most part just having some fun with you.

INTJoe

01-19-2009, 07:33 PM

Lidge had a 3.36 ERA in 2007 along with 8 blown saves (compared to 19 saves), including 3 blown saves in the final 5 weeks. And if I remember correctly, he lost the closer role for about 2 months, so his (already high) blown saves total could have been more. He improved from his miserable 2006 season, but it wasn't above average by any means.

Lidge: 131 ERA+ in 2007. Average is 100. Roy Halladay's career ERA+ is also 131. I'm pretty sure you know who Roy Halladay is. Chris Carpenter's is 112. Adam Wainwright's is 125. Hopefully this helps clarify how good his 2007 was. Even when taking into account he struggled at the beginning of 2007. His last half was sick good. Then the moronic Astros' front office decided to trade him. Amazing how good a team (Phillies) gets when they trade a AA centerfielder (Michael Bourn) to a moronic franchise for a top-notch closer (Lidge).

Also, saves and blown saves are a terrible indicator of performance. The save stat, imo, should be entirely done away with.

If you wanna talk more, what are your thoughts about the recent HOF inductees/snubs?

SRVcardsfan27

01-19-2009, 07:53 PM

I disagree with your stance on the save situation. Your job as a closer is to seal the deal and win the game. When you blow 8 saves out of 27 tries, that's just horrible. Notice how all the guys you mentioned are starters. Closers with a 3.36 ERA aren't exactly great. If you want to make your case relevant, list the top 5 closers' ERA+ in 2007.... Hell, how about top 10? You consider the pitchers serving his role, he's in fact, below average.

My thoughts on the HOF inductees are that Henderson is an obvious 1st ballot HOF. The greatest base stealer/leadoff hitter in the history of the game, bar none.

As for Rice, he was dominant for a decade, and there's no reason it should have been 15 years.

Santo is a guy who should be in the HOF. McGwire should also be in, but of course he may never make it. In terms of at bats/home run ratio, he is the most prolific home run hitter ever, and hit them a mile. 12 all-star games, and I believe he is the only member of the 400 home run club (and he has 583 HR) with fewer than 7000 at bats (6187).

EDIT::: There are three with fewer than 7000, but none fewer than 6500. Kingman had 442 HR, Juan Gone had 434 HR, and Piazza had 427 HR, but they are the only ones other than Big Mac with 400 Hr and less than 7000 at bats..... So, how about this statement: McGwire has the FEWEST amount of at bats of anyone with at least 370 HR (66 other guys) and he's 8th on the all-time list.

Steroids have been a part of the game the past 20 years, and to know which ones did and didn't do them is crazy. Besides, as long as we're taking care of it for the future, I say let them in unless there is absolute proof, and even then, it's a case-by-case basis.

They say it taints the game.... Well, technology advances and times change. If it inflates stats, then what about the hitter-friendly ballparks now, livelier balls, maple bats, etc. McGwire's performance must have not been basing everything off steroids, because if so, why aren't any other steroid boys even close to his ab/hr ratio?

And I'm not being a Cardinal homer..... Bonds in, Sosa in... Palmeiro...yeah, I'd say so.

As for the other snubs (I know Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro aren't eligible yet), I think Jack Morris should be in, as well as Blylevin.

INTJoe

01-19-2009, 09:52 PM

I don't know how to search for adjusted ERA+ leaders for strictly closers. But my point remains that saves are way over-rated and a super dumb statistic glorified to make closers money. Your role as a pitcher isn't to "win", "hold", or "save" the game, it's to get hitters to make outs, just like your goal as a hitter is to not make an out. It's not to "be clutch" and "win the game", it's only to not make an out. Do you think 2008 was Francisco Rodriguez's best season, because he had 62 saves? Because it was easily his 3rd best season in his young career. Saves are basically a meaningless stat.

I don't think Rice is deserving but it's not gonna keep me awake at night. I guess he'll go down in history as the epitome of "fringe HOFer". Waits entire 15 seasons and makes it in by 1%? lol. East Coast sports bias FTW!

Morris is not deserving. Blyleven should have been a first-ballot and it obviously a HUGE snub. These voters have their heads up their asses. They focus too much on wins, losses, and saves, which is pretty stupid. Blyleven gets penalized for playing on shitty teams.

Blyleven: 4,970 IP of 118 ERA+. 3,700 Ks. 1,300 walks. 242 CG's. 60 Shutouts.
Morris: 3,824 IP of 105 ERA+ (lol sooo dominant!). 2,500 Ks. 1,400 walks. 175 CG's, 28 Shutouts.

For Morris to match what Rik Aalbert did, he'd have to pitch 1,100 innings additional (say 5 years on top of his already long 18 year career) of 163 ERA+ baseball! Pedro Martinez's career ERA+ is 154, which is highest all-time for a starter. So Black Jack would have to take a random swatch of 5 years of Pedro, and pitch significantly better than that ON THE END of his already long career, to match what Blyleven did. 5 full seasons of 163 ERA+ pitching! Keep in mind, in 18 seasons, his best ERA+ was 133! So...he'd have to do something he never did in 18 tries, and do it 5 times, on the end of his long career.

Blyleven is rightfully pissed to not be in The Hall.

I also agree on McGwire. 7,500 plate appearances of 162 OPS+. lol. 'Nuff said. Steroids or not, those are HOF numbers. He crushed most of the competition, which was also roided up. The dude is 12 on the all-time adjusted OPS+ list. A couple shmucks name Musial and Aaron are behind him.

Have you read Moneyball?

SRVcardsfan27

01-20-2009, 07:46 AM

I don't know how to search for adjusted ERA+ leaders for strictly closers. But my point remains that saves are way over-rated and a super dumb statistic glorified to make closers money. Your role as a pitcher isn't to "win", "hold", or "save" the game, it's to get hitters to make outs, just like your goal as a hitter is to not make an out. It's not to "be clutch" and "win the game", it's only to not make an out. Do you think 2008 was Francisco Rodriguez's best season, because he had 62 saves? Because it was easily his 3rd best season in his young career. Saves are basically a meaningless stat.

Getting players to make outs are the way to getting a save. I would agree that wins are overrated because that has to do with your team scoring, and the relievers holding the lead. However, in a save situation, you are the one who is being depended on. You already have the lead, and its the 9th inning. You are the dependent variable. If you cannot, as you put it, "get hitterrs to make outs", you don't get the save, thus costing, or potentially costing your team the game.

K-Rod didn't have his best season. He had several blown saves. Efficiency is the key. Save opportunities are a product of the team, and that's not impressive, but a save itself has significant importance.

You're paid to make the outs in the 9th, and if you can't you're not doing your job.

Morris is not deserving.
Morris: 3,824 IP of 105 ERA+ (lol sooo dominant!). 2,500 Ks. 1,400 walks. 175 CG's, 28 Shutouts.

For Morris to match what Rik Aalbert did, he'd have to pitch 1,100 innings additional (say 5 years on top of his already long 18 year career) of 163 ERA+ baseball! Pedro Martinez's career ERA+ is 154, which is highest all-time for a starter. So Black Jack would have to take a random swatch of 5 years of Pedro, and pitch significantly better than that ON THE END of his already long career, to match what Blyleven did. 5 full seasons of 163 ERA+ pitching! Keep in mind, in 18 seasons, his best ERA+ was 133! So...he'd have to do something he never did in 18 tries, and do it 5 times, on the end of his long career.

6-1 in the playoffs and 3-0 in the World Series with a sub-3.00 ERA. He came up big in the playoffs in addition to his regular season stats. Also finished among the top 10 in Cy Young voting 7 times. He's more worthy than several HOF pitchers.

I'm not saying I think it's a crime he's not in, but I think he's deserving.

Have you read Moneyball?

No, should I?

INTJoe

01-20-2009, 10:34 AM

You just said wins are overrated (which is true), then cited his win-loss record in the playoffs. I'd say small sample size. It's not enough to push him over the top. His playoff resume is 92 innings of 3.80 ERA, 1.25 WHIP pitching. Decent, but not exactly eye-popping. And less than 1/2 of a regular season's work.

All saves are is 1 way to tell the story of how good a pitcher is. They somewhat give an indicator of how good a pitcher is, because they are directly related to performance, but there are way better numbers to look at than some silly, arbitrary stat.

Imagine this, extremely exaggerated example to clarify a point:

"Closer" comes in 18 save opportunities, pitches 1 inning in each of them, and in every case, he came into a 1-run game with 0 outs in the 9th. He "blew" 4 of 18 opportunities, allowing exactly 1 run in each blown save.

He had 14 saves and 4 blown saves in 18 tries.
His ERA was 2.00.

Was he good, or bad?

EDIT: Also, yeah, you'll love Moneyball. It's one of the best books I've read. It's like baseball + stock market analysis all wrapped into one. It delves into how Billy Beane and the Oakland A's were able to win so many games in the early 2000's with such little payroll (they were spending the fewest $ per win than any team other than the Twins). How they changed their evaluation of ballplayers based on having to find value to compete with large market teams. You don't have to be a fan of the A's or anything - it's a great book. All baseball stat nerds love it. I think it took me 4 days to read 300 pages. lol.

SRVcardsfan27

01-20-2009, 01:07 PM

You just said wins are overrated (which is true), then cited his win-loss record in the playoffs.

Overrated? Yes. Not worthy of talking about? No.

Imagine this, extremely exaggerated example to clarify a point:

"Closer" comes in 18 save opportunities, pitches 1 inning in each of them, and in every case, he came into a 1-run game with 0 outs in the 9th. He "blew" 4 of 18 opportunities, allowing exactly 1 run in each blown save.

He had 14 saves and 4 blown saves in 18 tries.
His ERA was 2.00.

Was he good, or bad?

He's pretty good. A 2.00 ERA for any pitcher is great. Certainly if someone blows a one run save situation here and there, it isn't a big thing, but any thing more than one run on a consistent basis is not a good thing.

EDIT: Also, yeah, you'll love Moneyball. It's one of the best books I've read. It's like baseball + stock market analysis all wrapped into one. It delves into how Billy Beane and the Oakland A's were able to win so many games in the early 2000's with such little payroll (they were spending the fewest $ per win than any team other than the Twins). How they changed their evaluation of ballplayers based on having to find value to compete with large market teams. You don't have to be a fan of the A's or anything - it's a great book. All baseball stat nerds love it. I think it took me 4 days to read 300 pages. lol.

OK, I've heard of that and remember people talking about it. I'll have to read it sometime.

INTJoe

01-20-2009, 02:29 PM

INTJoe

01-20-2009, 03:57 PM

SRV,

Who is the better hitter?:

Avg./OBP/SLG.

Hitter A: .250/.400/.550
Hitter B: .300/.400/.550

SRVcardsfan27

01-20-2009, 05:20 PM

To make my point even more clear, this closer could come in those 18 games with 0 outs and the bases loaded (I know this doesn't happen because the closer would start the 9th), but to clarify how silly the "save" stat is, play along...

So each of the 18 times he comes in, he has zero wiggle room in a 1-run game, and the bases are juiced. He can basically only allow strikeouts, pop-ups, and 1-out double play balls. He's basically f***ed, and doomed for "failure".

Say he saves 14 of these 18 games, like the guy in my previous example, and in the 4 games he blew, he gave up 1 run and got out of the inning with the game tied.

This guy's save conversion % is only 78%, yet he's clearly an amazing, elite, top-flight insanely good closer. His strikeout to walk ratio was likely insanely high. Probably around 18:1, with like 36 K's and a couple walks maybe.

Saves are way over-rated and barely tell the story at all.

Those runs wouldn't be charged to him, though. So, if he had a 2.00 ERA, then he allowed more than 3 runs to score (on multiple occasions) while coming in.

If saves like that happened frequently, then I would be in agreement with the saves thing, but in a practical approach, I do usually value them, while factoring save opp. and ERA. Save stats alone don't mean much, but the other information adds to it.

Eric Gagne for example in 03 or whenever it was when he had 55 or so saves with no blown and an ERA of like 1 or something of that nature.

SRVcardsfan27 added to this post, 1 minutes and 33 seconds later...

SRV,

Who is the better hitter?:

Avg./OBP/SLG.

Hitter A: .250/.400/.550
Hitter B: .300/.400/.550

Hitter A would be better due to the extra-base hits.

INTJoe

01-20-2009, 09:25 PM

SRVcardsfan27

01-21-2009, 06:27 AM

Yeah you know what I meant, forget the guy's ERA, my point was that he'd still have the blown saves (even though his ERA would be zero).

Wow, good job on the bonus question...most people battle this one till the cows come home. They can't fathom how someone with an average 50 points lower is actually better (with all the other numbers equal).

If you got this right, and thoroughly understand it then you indeed will love Moneyball. I actually asked an INTJ buddy (also big baseball fan) this same question and he kept telling me I was wrong "Hitter B gets more hits though..." lol.

Are you familiar with IsoP?

EDIT: Also, did you ever used to peruse firejoemorgan.com? It was a great sports (mostly baseball) blog that ripped apart sportswriters irrational arguments.

I'll read it in the near future.

I'm not familiar with IsoP.... Is that a user?

I loved firejoemorgan.com, and was disappointed when they retired it.

One of their last pieces was on someone's article explaining why Howard should win the MVP over Pujols, and he mentioned that Howard hit .352 in September..... then, FJM responded by saying, "While the Cardinals were playing baseball, Pujols hit .357.

I almost rolled out of my chair.

LaoTzu

01-21-2009, 07:48 AM

AZ is going to have to come out strong like they did against Philly if they want to win.
If Pit can hang around until later in the game, I'd have to think they'll win it.
I can't give a prediction on what I think is a pretty even matchup... :/

I'll root for AZ , though I like ppl on both sides. I just like it when Warner proves the world wrong.... again... and again.... lol

I love football, but I haven't watched baseball since the last strike.... and I don't miss it one bit. Even if the Jays were playing in the WS, I wouldn't watch it... just doing my part to help keep those costs down ;)

INTJoe

01-21-2009, 08:10 AM

I'm not familiar with IsoP.... Is that a user?

I loved firejoemorgan.com, and was disappointed when they retired it.

One of their last pieces was on someone's article explaining why Howard should win the MVP over Pujols, and he mentioned that Howard hit .352 in September..... then, FJM responded by saying, "While the Cardinals were playing baseball, Pujols hit .357.

I remember that entry. lol. Saying someone played well in September, "when the games mean more" is absurd. Games in April are just as valuable as games in September. And if someone "stepped it up" in September why did they "slack off" in April?

Howard would have been a terrible MVP last year. 124 OPS+ with 199 strikouts in 691 plate appearances? lol. That isn't much above average for the first base position. Berkman was more deserving to finish runner up (159 OPS+, 18 stolen bases, good defense), and he finished 5th. Probably because he slowed down in August and September "when the games meant more".

IsoP is just another cool stat I've recently learned. Not sure of all the implications of it, but I think it's better than SLG. IsoP is "Isolated Power", and is (SLG-AVG). So someone who hits .300 and slugs .550 has an IsoP of .250.

What IsoP does is helps to counteract the effect of getting a bunch of singles on a hitter's slugging %. For instance, in 2007, Ichiro slugged .431, which sounds pretty good. But he hit .351. And every single you get counts as 1.000 in terms of slugging. So his slugging was artificially high because he got a lot of singles (which is already taken into account with batting average...so it's like getting "dual credit"). It doesn't really tell the story that he's slugging pretty well, because his IsoP was only a paltry .80.

So what you really want is not just a hitter with high OPS (on base + slugging), you want one with high OPS and who has a high IsoP, because it means that their slugging was actually more valuable than it sounds. So just like in that example I showed you earlier, as long as two hitters are getting on base the same amount (thus, making outs the same amount), then the hitter with the better IsoP is unquestionably more valuable.

Examples of a hitter with high IsoP would be Adam Dunn. Career avg. of .247 and slugging .518. So his IsoP is a ridiculous .271. So he's much more valuable than other hitters with career OPSes of .900.

SRVcardsfan27

01-22-2009, 07:53 AM

IsoP is just another cool stat I've recently learned. Not sure of all the implications of it, but I think it's better than SLG. IsoP is "Isolated Power", and is (SLG-AVG). So someone who hits .300 and slugs .550 has an IsoP of .250.

Examples of a hitter with high IsoP would be Adam Dunn. Career avg. of .247 and slugging .518. So his IsoP is a ridiculous .271. So he's much more valuable than other hitters with career OPSes of .900.

That sounds like a valuable stat to measure people, and one I'll use to analyze numbers for now on. I've always loved OPS myself, though, and do value it pretty mightily.

callmemigs

02-10-2009, 07:43 AM

I like chess. Do you think mah jong and poker would count as sports too?

No seriously I like tennis and badminton. But I'm not a pro at it though I like playing tennis/badminton with my cousins. It's fun.

Cthulhu

02-11-2009, 09:31 PM

I played college football and I'm a huge college basketball and football fan. I follow the NBA and NFL as well, but I'm not quite as rabid about them.

As far as baseball goes, I love the Moneyball stuff and the old Bill James books but I get bored actually watching a baseball game.

INTJoe

02-13-2009, 01:03 AM

cool! What position and what College?

Samoan Corleone

02-13-2009, 01:21 AM

I've played Rugby (fullback), American Football (wide reciever), and I can swim. I was an ok player, good enough to get by, but sports weren't really my forte.

When it comes to being a spectator I'll enjoy watching just about anything. I have a favourite athlete of all time in just about every sport. They're all from the '90s, which was when I was a kid:

Tennis - Andre Agassi (USA)
Rugby - Gavin Hastings (Scotland)
Boxing - Evander Hollyfield (USA)
Football - Mike Alstott (USA)
Soccer - Thierry Henry (France)
Basketball - Karl Malone (USA)

There are others, but I can't think of them now.

Zombicide

02-13-2009, 01:22 AM

I hate sports or that is to say that I hate most traditional sports. With the exception of a few such as tennis and video games, I generally find sports in which the participants play the sport to be rather annoying actually. If it's not a sport one plays, then there a significantly greater chance that I may tolerate or even appreciate it.

PS: before someone says that "You can't have a sport where the participants don't play the sport, then it's not a sport" or something to that effect, examples of sports one does not play include but are not limited to boxing, combat sports in general, racing, Ninja Warrior / gauntlet (I especially like watching The Women Of Ninja Warrior), climbing, surfing, hunting, etcetera as people do not play boxing in real life, virtual boxing being ok as well.

Cthulhu

02-13-2009, 08:56 AM

cool! What position and what College?

I was a defensive tackle, second/third on the depth chart so I usually only got in games if someone was injured or in the fourth quarter of a blowout. Most of my time was spent as practice fodder for the monsters on the first string offensive line.

I'm fairly new to the forum and still want to remain reasonably anonymous so I'm going to hold off mentioning where I played for now. I will tell you that it was at a school that's in a BCS conference.

Let me throw out a thought for you and SRVcardsfan27 to kick around. What do you guys think of base stealing as a strategy? Stolen bases don't seem to have an observable correlation with runs scored.

INTJoe

02-14-2009, 12:45 AM

I've heard in MLB, you have to steal at a 73% clip or better for it to be usefull.

Of course when I coached my amateur men's league team I would always encourage guys to run early and often to test the catcher. I'd like to find out early if we could run the other team to death or play station-to-station ball. Obviously all the MLB catchers can throw you out. Well, almost all of them lol.

Cthulhu

02-14-2009, 11:49 PM

In Little League you send the runner every time, even if it's the big, fat slow kid. The catcher's going to throw the ball into center field most of the time.

I've heard numbers between 65 and 80% for MLB. Because I have nothing better to do on a Saturday night, I put together a simple linear regression model using the basic counter stats for the 30 teams for 2008. This is what the formula looks like:

Runs=-383+(Singles)*.46+(Doubles)*.99+(Triples)*1.32+(Ho me Runs)*1.48+(Walks)*.21+(Stolen Bases)*.20-(Caught Stealing)*.02

There are all kinds of problems with this formula but one of the biggest is that the coefficients for stolen bases and caught stealing aren't significant at any conventional level of significance. In other words, the computer calculates them because regression will always generate an answer but there's a large probability that the real answer is zero and that stolen bases and caught stealing don't have a clear relationship with runs scored.

Ignoring that very big caveat, you could say that on average and holding other things constant, a stolen base equates to 2/10 of a run and getting caught stealing costs you 2/100 of a run. That seems really counterintuitive, though.

disquared

02-15-2009, 02:29 AM

SRV,

Who is the better hitter?:

Avg./OBP/SLG.

Hitter A: .250/.400/.550
Hitter B: .300/.400/.550

Hitter A will, on average, get more doubles and home runs and score more runs, but Hitter B will drive in more runs. So I guess in most situations, Hitter A is better, especially if you have good hitters behind you in the batting order. However, if the ppl hitting behind you are incompetent of driving in runs, then Hitter B might be better, since for example, if you have a runner on second, then you drive him in with any kind of base hit.

I think that saves are indeed a pretty useless stat, along with wins and holds. ERA and WHIP are much more important. It's very rare to see a pitcher with good ERA/WHIP have bad W-L records or bad save conversion rates, and vice versa.

Cthulhu

02-15-2009, 12:16 PM

Hitter A will, on average, get more doubles and home runs and score more runs, but Hitter B will drive in more runs.

I'm not sure that I agree. Hitter A may well drive in more runs, as his additional doubles will on occasion drive in a runner from first and his home runs will clear the bases in addition to driving himself in. Both runs scored and RBI's are dependent to a certain extent on the situation in which the batter finds himself.

INTJoe

02-15-2009, 10:10 PM

you could say that on average and holding other things constant, a stolen base equates to 2/10 of a run and getting caught stealing costs you 2/100 of a run. That seems really counterintuitive, though.

I think there is no way those numbers can be accurate. There is way too big of a disparity between the 2. You also have to factor in the difference in value of stealing 2nd compared to 3rd. And the whether you are caught-stealing 2nd or 3rd. My gut tells me, in general, stealing 2nd is more valuable. Pros for each:

Pros for stealing 2nd:

Many times you can score from 2nd on a routine single.
Sometimes it causes the pitcher to intentionally walk next hitter, thus putting another hitter on base.
Greatly minimize possibility of double-play with fewer than 2 outs.
Pros for stealing 3rd:

Can score from any hit.
Can score from many mid-depth sacrifice flies w/ fewer than 2 outs
Can score from many soft-hit grounders to right side w/fewer 2 outs
Can score from passed ball/wild pitch no matter the outs.
Cons for getting thrown out at 2nd:

Losing 1/27th of your opportunities.
Cons for getting thrown out at 3rd:

You were already in "scoring position"
You were not in danger of being part of a groundball double-play.
Losing 1/27th of your opportunities.
Man, there is probably a ton I'm leaving out here. So complex...
If an average team scores about 5 runs a game that is about 1 run per 5 outs, so is 1 out worth .2 runs or am I way oversimplifying things?

Cthulhu

02-16-2009, 10:32 AM

So complex...

Indeed. I don't think a very high level look at stolen bases can tell the story. To get at the heart of the matter might require an analysis of a season's worth of scoresheets to answer some questions like "How frequently do runners score after stealing a base?" and "Does batting average change for at bats when a steal is attempted?".

Have you ever played Strat-O-Matic?

INTJoe

02-16-2009, 11:56 AM

stat-o-matic... I'm not that old.

What are your thoughts on the Three True Outcomes?

Cthulhu

02-16-2009, 12:19 PM

stat-o-matic... I'm not that old.

What are your thoughts on the Three True Outcomes?

Oh, come now. Old geezers like me had to have something to do before Al Gore invented the internet. There's a computer version available that impertinent youngsters like yourself can play if sitting in a rocking chair and playing the tabletop version with your elderly buddies sounds a little too 20th century for you.

I think the theory behind TTO is very solid when it comes to evaluating pitchers, and I love any stat that puts Rob Deer at the top of the list.

INTJoe

02-16-2009, 01:58 PM

lol Rob Deer.

I think the TTOs are more helpful in evaluating pitchers though.

Minimize walks, maximize Ks, minimize homeruns. The defense/foul territory is largely out of their control.

Cthulhu

02-16-2009, 02:45 PM

I don't see much analytical value in it when it comes to hitters either, unless you're a member of some Rob Deer Fan Club.

In honor of yesterday's NBA All-Star Game: Are All-Star Games fun or just a pointless distraction from the regular season?

spoxjox

06-08-2009, 07:30 PM

Resurrecting this hilarious thread.

Btw, I assume I have been an INTJ all my life, but about ten years ago (I'm 46), I started losing interest in almost all sports. For the last six or seven years, I have only followed college football, and that only if my favorite teams are doing well. Don't follow NFL or NBA at all, not a game. Never was interested in MLB, NHL, or (gack) NASCAR. I have just almost totally lost interest in all sports, college and pro.

Except MMA. Now THAT's cool! I really enjoy MMA, of all the ridiculous things. I'm not much of a boxing fan -- never really understood the fascination with watching two men try to give each other concussions. But I do enjoy wrestling and judo (watching and participating), so maybe that's why I enjoy MMA.

(Perhaps strangely, I find women's MMA distasteful, even repulsive. Gina Carano seems like a nice gal, and I dislike the idea of her getting her face busted up. I get no enjoyment watching two women trying to pulverize each other. Don't know if it's inborn heterosexual protectiveness toward women or just how I was raised.)

Mader

06-08-2009, 09:14 PM

I really enjoy watching baseball and football.

It is a vicarious win, and I love to win. I do not get into the jersey/bar and beer part. I enjoy the friendly trash talk among players and admire the modesty of good players. I pay attention to the individual contribution to a team (since I am not a team player).

Coached girls softball for a few years. The kids were great, the game was great. Talk about competition! Parents would cut another child's legs off if it meant another inning for their daughter because every parent was sure their daughter would go Div I.

Then the girls discovered boys.......