2013 MLB Regular Season running thread

Why? Fanboys turn out to be right on occasion. Doesn't mean they made a proper argument at the time.

 

Ryan Howard needs knee surgery. Out 6-8 weeks:

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies_zone/Ryan-Howard-needs-surgery-could-miss-6-8-weeks.html

Let the Phillies' Phire Sale begin ...

 

Sorry, that's my fault. I had Segure' name in my mind when I was checking the numbers.

Cabrera is 12th this year at 6 runs above average

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2013&month=0&season1=2013&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=24,d

 

Ah ... so now we are getting into some serious rigor here. ;D

 

Given that most statheads agree, I am confident that I am on solid ground there.

 

Don't most statheads also agree on WAR and OPS+? You hate those.

 

Apparently, my point sailed right over your head.

What I'm saying is that if even the statheads dont like the current defensive metrics, that just proves how flawed they are.

I don't hate WAR and OPS+. I find them less valuable than statistics without adjustments. I prefer my statistics to measure what happened, not somebody's opinion of what might have happened under different circumstances.

 

Another way of looking at what you're saying is:

"Statheads don't like defensive metrics. Therefore, I am on solid ground."

"Statheads like metrics like WAR and OPS+. Who gives a shit what statheads say?"

 

If by another way you mean a stupid way that demonstrates your inability to read, then that would be it.

 

Finally a uniform that fits Jose Valverde. (Yes, that's a hot dog on the front).

 

I saw that yesterday. Even I feel bad for the guy. Wearing a uniform with a hot dog on it (or as the Mud Hens did earlier this year, Chewbacca fur) just screams bush league.

 

I don't care whether the statheads like the defensive metrics or not. On a scale of 0-to-100 -- with 100 being perfection -- perhaps current defensive metrics are at 5. But if they're a 5 and there's nothing else (and I don't really know whether that's true), then they are infinitely better than simply not using them at all.

It's a matter of reliability, not validity. Suppose you really needed to measure something's length. All you had was a measuring tape made out of elastic. Yes, your measure would be imperfect because of the unreliability of your measurement tool, but there would be no reason to suspect systematic bias in the measurement. Don't you think even a flawed measure is preferable to not measuring the damn thing at all? That's where I am coming from.