Oh, don’t be daft. Of course I know. It means winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing! You gotta have heart and come through in the clutch! You need guys who know how to win! You need RBIs …in other words this is gibberish. I couldn’t have asked for a clearer sign of “no argument here.”
In fact that was all one comment. And yes, Beane was frustrated at the limitations of what he’s able to control. If the A’s want to win more, you’d think the easiest way would be to stop being one of the cheapest teams in the majors, which would let them attract some better players and add depth. But that’s not going to happen. “Do something else!” isn’t really an alternative. Incidentally the tight budget may have something to do with the lack of midseason trades ElvisL1ves was talking about: in those trades you usually get one expensive asset that you keep for a short time in exchange for several assets that are cheap and under team control for the long term. That doesn’t sound like something a team on a shoestring budget is going to do.
But statistics don’t have heart! Holy cow, I just noticed “stats are for losers, winners win.” Winning happens by MAGIC!
Whoa! What brought THAT on? Did you actually read my post?
I said several times that IMHO the most likely explanation for Oakland’s lack of postseason success is chance. Please go back and read it again if you don’t believe me.
Nor did I ever mention “Moneyball,” either as a pejorative or as a compliment. Again, please go back and read my post again if you think otherwise.
For the record, I do not believe for one moment that any team doesn’t “want to win.” Nowhere in my post did I imply that. Unless you think that pointing out just how bad the A’s have been in the postseason somehow is equivalent to attacking their heart and drive. Which I hope you don’t, because it makes it very difficult to have a rational conversation.
As a math-oriented person, all I am saying is, Let’s look at the numbers, let’s look at the evidence. Which show that the Oakland A’s have been (I’ll say it again) really, REALLY bad in the postseason. That’s all.
So your strategy is to continue to make such obnoxious comments to people who disagree with you that no one will ever dare talk about your cherished statistics ever, ever again at risk of being met with shit like this? It looks like you’ve just decided to just mock those who disagree with you. Lazy.
You might not be familiar with the history here, but this is a battle you joined about a decade into the bloodshed. Many, many words have been written by plenty of stat-types who were trying to bridge this gap, and many have been repelled from these walls with the kind of munitions Marley’s being sarcastic about at present. It may change minds slowly, over time, but it’s met with sneering condescension the first time around one hundred percent of the time. It’s possible that you’re accidentally tripping the same alarms that usually get tripped by the people who love to go on and on about how sabermetric-types are in their mother’s basements running regression analyses on computers while the game’s being played out in the real world, but you’ve definitely been tripping them. I mean, I don’t have to speculate at you about what your starting point was here; you obviously already know.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but I can say I personally would think it was a blast - in theory - to talk about why you’re being unfair to “Moneyball,” and what it is that “Moneyball” even means. But I can tell you that I haven’t bothered and don’t really want to bother, because I have zero faith it’s going to be a good faith conversation. It never is; there’s an emotional investment to “the game” that doesn’t leave room for the kind of counterintuitive black and white nerdery that sabermetrics often embraces. I’m not mocking you. But I know what comes next after the “Holy Gospel” and the “good enough” nonsense and, you know, it’s never not been time wasted.
By the way (speaking of the current playoffs, which no one has been for a while, but whatever), Ethier is apparently back in the starting lineup for tonight. Please, no one blow on him too hard!
Yeah, I’m done with it all, I just find it ironic that someone who defends a fundamental belief in stats and facts, would use jerkish language that could only be seen as means to incite an emotional response from their opponents, instead of using straight facts.
But I suppose, like Billy Beane who has redefined “success” to benefit himself, an admin here can redefine what constitutes “jerkish” comments to benefit his own argument.
I’m not aware of any of the other previous arguments of sabermetrics on the Board, so the insulting and dismissive attitude Marley has employed here has no history with me, but dismissive and insulting, it is. Yet only **ElvisL1ves **gets mod attention.
When you said the guy employs “delicate statistical genius” I didn’t think it was jerkish or inappropriate or offensive to describe that as mockery- that’s certainly how I read it. I didn’t do anything with the intent to provoke you, and making fun of an argument isn’t the same as making for of you individually. This topic has been pretty well beaten to death around here and I maybe have wrongly assumed you were familiar with that, but I didn’t set out to do anything to provoke you or demean you.
The Dodgers wrote the book on that, or at least that’s how it’s felt the last five years or so. This season has been a massive improvement on that (as it should be with their lineup). And Uribe has come through in the 3rd.