Missouri asked, and he shall receive

[CEO2044]

Gosh damn.

If all there were to coaching baseball were playing only percentages (skewed, BTW), any nerd could do it. Put all of the stats into it you want, but you'd better know your team and how to read the game before you just read some stats book and walk out there.

 

[Will James]

Gosh damn.

If all there were to coaching baseball were playing only percentages (skewed, BTW), any nerd could do it. Put all of the stats into it you want, but you'd better know your team and how to read the game before you just read some stats book and walk out there.

No **** but damn you can't just ignore them like Cohen seems to do on this issue. If the stats were meaningless then the saber guys and Beane and Epstein wouldn't be given two seconds.

 

[CadaverDawg]

No **** but damn you can't just ignore them like Cohen seems to do on this issue. If the stats were meaningless then the saber guys and Beane and Epstein wouldn't be given two seconds.

Beane hasn't made it any deeper into the postseason than Cohen...But you say Beane is a genius by not making the World Series, but Cohen sucks for not making the World Series.

 

[Will James]

Beane hasn't made it any deeper into the postseason than Cohen...But you say Beane is a genius by not making the World Series, but Cohen sucks for not making the World Series.

Until this past year the baseball playoffs were 8 teams. It's just as hard to make the playoffs as the CWS, harder actually because you can't just get hot for two weeks. You don't even think you just try anything and when it fails you come back with even more ********. Can't wait for noxdog's next appearance

 

[CadaverDawg]

It's just as hard to make the playoffs as the CWS.

And this proves what? That what I just said is completely accurate.

I don't have to say anything because I know I'm right.

As I've said a thousand times, I completely agree that we **** too much with 1 on and 0 outs...but I'm just able to see that there are situations that call for it. If you're as big a baseball fan as you claim, then you know this stat you throw out there doesn't tell the whole story. That's why everyone gets on you about it, bc you won't admit that.

But I do enjoy throwing as many things out there as possible and watching how you find ways to make a response fit your theory. I definitely don't ever expect you to admit it, but if you're going to try and be Coach34, i guess you'll have to get used to the 34 treatment.

 

[Will James]

And this proves what? That what I just said is completely accurate.

I don't have to say anything because I know I'm right.

As I've said a thousand times, I completely agree that we **** too much with 1 on and 0 outs...but I'm just able to see that there are situations that call for it. If you're as big a baseball fan as you claim, then you know this stat you throw out there doesn't tell the whole story. That's why everyone gets on you about it, bc you won't admit that.

But I do enjoy throwing as many things out there as possible and watching how you find ways to make a response fit your theory. I definitely don't ever expect you to admit it, but if you're going to try and be Coach34, i guess you'll have to get used to the 34 treatment.

There is a place for it, only one place

90+% of the times we do it are not that place. Beane has made it farther than Cohen by making the playoffs. Why are you obsessed with 34?

 

[topbulldawg]

Those are our results from last year guy *

So you admit your sample size is way too small....got it

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when executing the sac **** for the first out (20) 77%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out (6) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when executing the sac b*nt for the first out 0%

And then

1) Probability of scoring 0 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (30) 45%
2) Probability of scoring 1 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (15) 23%
3) Probability of scoring 2 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (12) 18%
4) Probability of scoring 3 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (7) 11%
5) Probability of scoring more than 4 runs when the lead off batters on base and is not b*nted over (2) 3%

I genuinely do not care anything about this conversation anymore. 17 you. 17 you. 17 you. And 17 you.

 

[CEO2044]

They were buying players and junk- a LITTLE different than just going by stats in the game. If everyone's playing that game, whom is going to beat whom?

Percentages matter to an extent, but I'd take a guy that can read the game over one of those guys any day of the week.

Tony LaRussa will drive you insane if you go only by those. (You'll argue he majorly plays percentages- to an extent. He gives some "lesser" ones a bit more importance than others- that's EXPERIENCE, not merely by the book.
Kirk Gibson doesn't get put in if you go by those.
There'd be no perfect games.

Sit back, enjoy the year, quit getting so worked up over something that is semi-important but not the most important thing. Let it play out.

 

[Will James]

They were buying players and junk- a LITTLE different than just going by stats in the game. If everyone's playing that game, whom is going to beat whom?

Percentages matter to an extent, but I'd take a guy that can read the game over one of those guys any day of the week.

Tony LaRussa will drive you insane if you go only by those. (You'll argue he majorly plays percentages- to an extent. He gives some "lesser" ones a bit more importance than others- that's EXPERIENCE, not merely by the book.
Kirk Gibson doesn't get put in if you go by those.
There'd be no perfect games.

Sit back, enjoy the year, quit getting so worked up over something that is semi-important but not the most important thing. Let it play out.

Oh I will enjoy this season even the ****s because there is nothing better than DNF. As far as worked up, look at everyone but me. This is fun for me although I do understand how being made to look bad would work them up. 3 things have worked me up this past calendar year: Koenning, Wilson, and 3-2 Samford.

 

[SanfordRJones]

I understand that and disagree with the strategy as much as you do. I'm just saying those types of statistics don't necessarily paint the whole picture. There are a small handful of times when the **** is the right move even though they might go against the numbers because of the personnel involved. In pretty much every other situation, ****ing is stupid.

 

[Will James]

I understand that and disagree with the strategy as much as you do. I'm just saying those types of statistics don't necessarily paint the whole picture. There are a small handful of times when the **** is the right move even though they might go against the numbers because of the personnel involved. In pretty much every other situation, ****ing is stupid.

We agree, and almost all of the times we do it comes in the stupid category.