Continues to drop off? When you say continues to drop off, you act like it is dropping off, and that's ridiculous. Scott's struggles happened during the first two months (really, just April) of the season. He was remarkably consistent (and good) for the last four months. Do you not see that this is the complete opposite of Ensberg in 2006, who started great but finished poorly? And Burke was terrible all season. Not really comparable to Scott in any way. Also, Scott's numbers declined from 2006? Good God, did anyone in the world expect that they wouldn't? Scott's 2006 was on par with Albert Pujols, in the time that he played. Of course he wasn't going to repeat that. But he doesn't have to be Albert Pujols to be a good player.
Eh, I hope you are right and I am wrong.....(I know...I know...you have empirically proven that you will be right and I will be wrong, thats the great thing about debating a SABR superstar..they are sometimes wrong, but never uncertain) Anyway, I have to attend every home game with my job, so it will be very nice for me if Luke and (what the heck) Burke outperform my expectations.
While I wouldn't generally categorize Cat in this manner, that was freaking hilarious. SABR Superstar! Man, that's better than every "slide rule" wisecrack I've ever lobbed out there.
I don't know why you have to bring the attitude. No one's saying they can't be wrong. But the evidence shows that Scott's 2007 was very different from Ensberg's 2006, and I don't get where the comparison comes from. It's almost like you're punishing Scott for being so great in 2006, like you'd be more pleased if he had been terrible and then been better in 2007. Again, I'll emphasize that he doesn't have to be Albert Pujols to be a good hitter. There's a level in between Pujols and suck.
Also, Major, can you explain what basic statistics like OBP and SLG have to do with sabermetrics? We're not talking complex formulas here. We're using routine statistics. What would you prefer to use instead, if these are too complex?
I really don't understand the backlash against statistical analysis in sports. We use data to back our opinions in pretty much every other outlet, but try to put that same logic to use and athletics and suddenly you're the guy who would rather build spreadsheets than watch a game in person. Would you prefer a doctor to diagnose you by looking at your medical background and test results, or by simply watching you walk around his office? Would you prefer a judge look at the facts of a case, or simply render his verdict by observing you in court? But in sports, what a person sees is always considered so much more accurate than how the numbers say he performed.
Your reply started with "Since you are all knowing" so I presume I have yet to corner the market on "attitude" in this discussion. I don't have anything against you...you care and write about the Astros...you actually attend games. I just think Luke Scott isn't "money in the bank" to perform at the .900 OPS level (or the RSVP, AEIOU or DDT level for that matter ((sorry am still learning my abbreviations))
Ah, bro, he's just joking. You gotta admit--the running smack-talk between "Purists" and "SABRSuperstars" can be pretty funny.
My reply started with that since you made the "hard on" joke and made a comparison between Ensberg/Burke and Scott, which to this point still hasn't been explained as having much merit. Ensberg consistently trended downward in 2006. Scott consistently trended upward in 2007.
Precisely. With slide rules, too. The analogy falls apart. The doctor isn't measuring performance at all (with the exception of the EKG), but what is specifically there. The vast majority of medical tests are for the levels of certain chemicals or cells in the blood, the presence of foreign bodies, or pictures (not measurements at all) of the tissues in the body to find structural breakdown or damage. Again, the analogy breaks down. The judge in criminal or civil court is determining culpability, not measuring performance. And for every time I've presented it in this manner I've been guilty of "overcorrecting". Statistical analysis in sports will always have the weakness of being unable to include all the variables. That in part is why it's so attractive, but why it *must* be taken in context with the rest of what happended on the field of play. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I've seen stats guys finagle (sp?) numbers in such a way to come up with some ridiculous conclusions, way way out of the context of what happened on the field. So, in some of my response to "numbers-only" or "numbers-mostly" kind of guys, I've come across heavy-handed the other way. Statistics are *very* valuable. But they must be kept in the proper context. Them's my uninvited 2ยข, anyway.
I tend not to take these dust ups too seriously. I am very open about the fact that there are some stats I don't understand. (adjusted batting runs anyone). I got a little peeved on one of my baseball boards at someone who howled relentlessly about Biggio blocking Burke (hey is that a Lyle Lovett album). And onetime I went a little ballistic at someone who insisted to me that it had been empirically proven that a speedy baserunner NEVER distracts a pitcher. For the most part I like people who care enough about the game to study it, I just like to give em some flack.
he didn't make a comparison between Scott and Ensberg as players and you know that. "There has to be someone on the Astros every year who the SABR crowd has a hard on for. With Ensberg gone and Burke hitting like Rafael Landestoy looks like its Luke Scott's year."
The non-literal intent is pretty clear, and if you choose to ignore that, I guess there's not much else I can say.
that there's always a player who is strongly supported by the amature sabermaticians who has fallen out of favor amongst the average fan. First it was ensberg, then it was burke, and now it's scott.
Huh? When did Scott fall out of favor with the average fan? Take a look at the Chronicle blogs... doesn't get more average fan than that. Take a look at Alyson Footer's mailbag. The average fan likes Luke Scott and doesn't understand why he's not getting more playing time or doesn't have a lock on a starting role next season. Would you mind showing me evidence of how he's "fallen out of favor"?
This thread. people in here were immediately in favor of bringing in Hunter or Rowand and ready to ship scott off.
and by the way, you still haven't shown, whether literal or implicit, how major was comparing scott and ensberg as players.
