Re: ARod is not clutch

On Apr 10, 11:43 am, theBZA <dewey3kNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Thermos" <cfb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1176216694.277545.227830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Apr 10, 10:37 am, theBZA <dewey3kNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Thermos" <cfb...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:1176214409.004717.80460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Apr 10, 10:03 am, theBZA <dewey3kNOS...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thermos <cfb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
innews:TcmdnZidi58I64bbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@xxxxxxx:

theBZA wrote:
Thermos <cfb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:9vWdnctY3quUWIfbnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@xxxxxxx:

theBZA wrote:
Not necessarily directed at ARod's stats here but I'll point
out that "his career late/close numbers" are meaningless if,
as you say, "he has struggled for the last couple" of
playoffs and seasons. I mean, a guy whose OPS is .400 for 4
years in a row is not a great hitter no matter what he did 10
years ago.

You're mixing a measurement over a very large sample with a
measurement over a small one and a measurement over a tiny one
too small to mean much of anything.

No, I am acknowledging that players get slower and weaker as
they age. It is irrational to look a player's peak years and
assume similar production a decade down the line. But hey, Jeff
Bagwell had a lot of great years. Only one poor one at the end.
So why not sign him up? That one year is just a tiny sample too
small to mean much of anything.

The two have nothing at all to do with each other. Nobody has
made the argument you're suggesting with your Bagwell example,
first of all. Secondly, as I mentioned, comparing a career, a
season and a small handful of plate appearances in the playoffs
is mixing apples and oranges.

Well, not really.

Yes, really.

But you know, if he has another poor season and
playoffs this year, you can explain how it continues to be apples
and oranges, right?

I suppose that depends on what "it" is. I was referring to the
comparison you made in your post, which presumed to contradict
Kenny's comments but actually didn't at all because, as I said, you
mixed apples and oranges.

You can say this until ARod retires it doesn't make it true or even
sensible.

I think you and I are having 2 entirely different conversations here.
I'm responding to your misuse of statistics in your response to Kenny,
not making an argument about Alex Rodriguez. You somehow seem
convinced that I am, and quite clearly I am not. You'll have to argue
whatever point you are trying to make with someone else.

First of all, I started out by saying (you can see it clearly in the
attribution) "Not necessarily directed at ARod's stats". Secondly, I am
not even "using" any stats so it is impossible for me to be "misusing"
them.

If you weren't using them in the post to which I responded, then I'm
hardpressed to think of what your comments could have possibly meant.

My point was that it is senseless to point to ARod's (or anyone's)
"late/close numbers" from several years ago and think they are relevant
today if recent seasons and postseasons show very different production.

If that was your point, I didn't take that from your comments at
all.

However, I get the impression from the many posts you've made in this
thread that you appear to think that such numbers from several years ago
are somehow more relevant today than recent history.

Well, its not necessary for you to imagine what you think I believe,
you can just ask me. I believe - and quite strongly - that small
amounts of recent history are not more important than large amounts of
history in total. Its not irrelevant, but its not more important than
the history as awhole, viewed in context. I'm not alone in that
belief, as you'll find some of the widely acknowledged best minds in
baseball making the same observation. Its how good teams make good
decisions while bad teams make bad decisions based on only the most
recent history. Sensible people know that in any player's career
there are fluctuations in results, up and down, which are not
partiularly meaningful in evaluating the player as a whole.

If so, that is your
delusion and you are welcome to it. If not, then I must be somehow
misreading your incessant "apples and oranges" similes although I don't
think that is the case.


The apples and oranges come from your consistent mixing of statistical
populations throughh your misunderstanding of basic statistical
concepts, and suggesting that in doing so you are somehow
substantiating some point you are trying to make.
No, it's quite simple.

Its so simple that you've managed to change the subject.

I started the subject. If anyone changed it, it was you since you and I
exchange back and forth to the start of the thread.

I had one simple point in response to your post. It had nothing
whatsoever to do with Rodriguez or any other specific ballplayer.
You're the one who keeps suggesting I am making a comment about him,
and I clearly am not.

BTW, the entire
thread was tongue-in-cheek to begin with so I'm not sure what it was you
found necessary to argue. Perhaps you are too sensitive to perceived
slights of ARod for some reason.

Like I said, this is amusing since I wasn't commenting on him at all.
You're the one who keeps bringing the discussion back to him. So, if
someone's particularly sensitive about him, it sure looks like its
you.


I'm sure if I had bashed Mientkiewicz
for having a couple of bad seasons in a row, you would most certainly
not be calling it "apples and oranges" and throwing his seasons from
2000-2003 in my face.

That would depend on whether you were being coherent. I tend to find
incoherence intolerable regardless of the topic.

Either way, I see no point in continuing this. I
certainly would love for ARod to return to 2005 form but I suspect that
even if 2005-2006 playoff ARod is the norm for another 3 years, you'll
find some reason to dismiss it.


I'll go out on a limb and guess that if I post something about farming
in New Hampshire, you'll respond with a post about Alex Rodriguez, and
one which badly misapplies statistics in some half-baked manner. I'd
put money on that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ARod is not clutch
    ... point out that "his career late/close numbers" are ... the playoffs is mixing apples and oranges. ... "historical" performance and ignoring recent history makes no sense. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: ARod is not clutch
    ... out that "his career late/close numbers" are meaningless if, ... season and a small handful of plate appearances in the playoffs ... is mixing apples and oranges. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: ARod is not clutch
    ... that "his career late/close numbers" are meaningless if, ... small handful of plate appearances in the playoffs is mixing apples ... and oranges. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: ARod is not clutch
    ... that "his career late/close numbers" are meaningless if, ... small handful of plate appearances in the playoffs is mixing apples ... and oranges. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Androcless accusations of lying
    ... ct is scalar multiple of x, otherwise it may already be squewed or ... Oranges, and apples, if you like. ... Of course, I'm talking about real physics and sanity, not theoretical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)