11/05/24
September 26, 2005
Stat-a-holic?: How about a fantasy league based off of just these stats?
posted by jasonspaceman to baseball at 12:00 PM - 24 comments
Nice. See?!? Blue Jays have some talent... I hope.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 01:24 PM on September 26, 2005
Its not that confusing- but hardly anyone will ever need these stats. Watch people start to say these are the determining factors in the MVP battle between Ortiz and A Rod. lol! :)
posted by redsoxrgay at 01:37 PM on September 26, 2005
when you need a PHD in math in order to figure out the scoring. 
Runs
posted by yerfatma at 01:51 PM on September 26, 2005
There are three of them that could very well factor into any MVP battle. If you are talking about a battle between Ortiz and A-Rod: 1) the final 3 in the article apply only to pitchers, not going to make a difference there 2)Go back into that thread and get beat around some more, don't bring it into here because you could not handle it in that thread. Now as for the original reason we are here, These would be some great additions to any Fantasy baseball league I think. I am not quite sure about a league based soley on stats of this nature though, just my opinion.
posted by jojomfd1 at 03:19 PM on September 26, 2005
Dont we have enough stats aleady???? AAAUUGH!-
posted by daddisamm at 04:35 PM on September 26, 2005
These stats really aren't that difficult. If someone just throws up their hands and says "This is too confusing!", they really aren't trying. Somehow, batting average is easy for people to grasp (hits/AB), but they get all flustered with K/BB, PA/K and Inh%. It's the same math (numerator/denominator fractions), but with easier numbers to calculate! However, people fear change and there isn't much you can do. Except to wait for them to die and then take over. :) That said, I do believe that there is a trend towards "garbage stats", which don't really tell you anything at all, or are so contrived and minute that they are open to sample-size problems. Just mashing together two (or more) stats without reason is a "garbage stat". Setting very tight limits on what you are measuring (batting average by inning, as a silly example) doesn't really lead to much. My most hated garbage stat is when the show someone long-time player's stats versus a specific franchise (say, Bonds versus the Atlanta Braves). Even though he's faced them in 5 different ballparks (Pittsburgh, Atlanta old, Atlanta new, San Fran old, San Fran new), and has faced as many as 60 different pitchers in his lifetime, in various months over various times of day, I'm supposed to grasp that it's an indicator of how he is going to do against this rookie pitcher he's about to face. That's just stats for the sake of stats.
posted by grum@work at 05:10 PM on September 26, 2005
That said, I do believe that there is a trend towards "garbage stats" Which is why I was so excited our local sports trash station didn't renew the contract of Bob Neumier. He's a nice guy, but he used to make up the most specious stats and top them with a delicious coating of small sample size.
posted by yerfatma at 06:06 PM on September 26, 2005
For me, garbage stats are only cool when Vin Scully announces them.
posted by jasonspaceman at 06:16 PM on September 26, 2005
Hey- screw you- im not getting beat- im simply stating a fact. Besides, A Rod is probally going to be MVP. Anyway, I thought this article was amusing. P.s- I didnt need you to summarize the freakin article for me- I played in the minor leagues and was scouted by the Cubs. I think playing CF my whole life I can understand the game. The only reason I didnt make it was because of a bum knee. (I was a speed guy), so my career was over. Anyway, A Rod SHOULD be MVP, and I bet my bottom dollar I can play better than you. Thanks Joe-
posted by redsoxrgay at 07:01 PM on September 26, 2005
Hey- screw you- im not getting beat- im simply stating a fact. Your commentary in that thread was mostly opinion, very little fact. Regardless, I think what jojomfd1 is referring to is this baffling statement: Anyway- Vartiek is just almost as good as Ortiz if you consider every stat. And then disappeared when called on it.
posted by justgary at 07:22 PM on September 26, 2005
This is like the 4th person to tell us all how playing the game means you understand it. To you sir I say, Joe Morgan.
posted by yerfatma at 07:26 PM on September 26, 2005
All of those stats are useful and pretty easy to figure out. If you have a high school diploma you should be able to understand them. WHIP, Opp BA, and K/BB ratio are key factors that can determine if a pitcher is succesful or not. There are exceptions, but generally if a pitcher can stay above average or average in these categories they have the opportunity to be succesful. Sometimes W's and ERA have alot to do with luck. GM's and player personnel directors look at these stats more these days then the just W's and ERA.
posted by erkno11 at 08:49 PM on September 26, 2005
WHIP is a category in all of the FF baseball leagues that I play in. Of course my experience is limited to that of the Yahoo Public and Custom leagues. The other Categories listed don't seem that hard to figure out either, I just meant I would hope for more categories along with them also. Oh, and that is exactly what I was pointing out, thanks justgary. Sorry, but that horse died yesterday.
posted by jojomfd1 at 10:13 PM on September 26, 2005
K/BBand K/9 are worth learning if you have any interest in tracking your team's pitching prospects.
posted by yerfatma at 06:18 AM on September 27, 2005
There is nothing difficult or superfluous about any of the stats listed in the article. Especially the pitcher's stats. In fact, to echo what erkno says - these are a better judge of a guys stuff than wins and ERA. But is is just me, or does this article seem like 5 years behind the times? WHIP has been included in TV broadcast stat packages for a few years now, among others. I would have guessed that this would talk about secondary average, VORP and win shares - those being the popular references these days (and good ones - especially VORP).
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:49 AM on September 27, 2005
Yeah, I was a little underwhelmed, but it's USA Today. Slow is better than not at all.
posted by yerfatma at 08:57 AM on September 27, 2005
Ortiz should get the MVP just on the strength of his clutch hitting alone. Well, that and his monster numbers. Did anyone really think somebody with a name like redsoxrgay is going to have a reasonable argument against them?
posted by fenriq at 06:28 PM on September 27, 2005
On web pages littering the landscape, in pubs and taverns, deep in the sweaty bowels of the local YMCA, hardened, cruel men, twisted and bent by fate's harsh whims, turn their weathered countenances skyward, gaze witheringly at the heavens, and bark the harshest words they know: if it weren't for my bum knee...
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:28 PM on September 27, 2005
On web pages littering the landscape, in pubs and taverns, deep in the sweaty bowels of the local YMCA, hardened, cruel men, twisted and bent by fate's harsh whims, turn their weathered countenances skyward, gaze witheringly at the heavens, and bark the harshest words they know: Whats that supposed to mean? I ran a 4.3 40 time, but slowed just enough to get scouts onto other prospects. I wasnt as fast, but can still run a 7:00 mile.
posted by redsoxrgay at 02:34 PM on September 28, 2005
I wasnt as fast, but can still run a 7:00 mile. I'm not making fun of you, but they mentioned on the Amazing Race 8 last night that the little girl in this family can also run a 7:00 mile. I was just taken aback by the synchronous timing of these bits of information. I could probably run a 7:00 mile...if my life depended on it. And I was allowed to die at the end.
posted by grum@work at 06:15 PM on September 28, 2005
Whats that supposed to mean? If you couldn't figure it out, don't ask. It'll only get worse, just a suggestion. I ran a 4.3 40 time, but slowed just enough to get scouts onto other prospects. I wasnt as fast, but can still run a 7:00 mile. A 4.3 40 is quick, and I doubt that's why the scouts didn't pick you. As far as the 7:00 mile you're right you weren't fast, but when is the last time you saw a baseball player run a mile to first base, or even after hitting a triple?
posted by jojomfd1 at 10:11 AM on September 29, 2005
Basically so much for (I was a speed guy), so my career was over.
posted by jojomfd1 at 10:13 AM on September 29, 2005
Hey I said that NOW I can run about a 7 minute mile. I ran a 4.3 right before my injury. My fastest ever was a 3.68. That happened when I was in the best shape in my life. And by the way, my lowest SB total was 22 in a season.
posted by redsoxrgay at 07:30 PM on October 02, 2005
Its time to stop playing fantasy sports when you need a PHD in math in order to figure out the scoring.