Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):
"Or 'geriatrics' realize tangible/measurable stats are far more accurate than subjective formulas."

Except I wasn't comparing RBI to home runs. I was comparing stats (which include both RBI and HR) to advanced metrics.

Given your obsession with advanced metrics, you should know the difference. Which proves, once again, that you're just trying to stir the pot for ***** and giggles.

Einstein, it's called an example. No one thought your were comparing RBI to HR.

"RBI will give you a more accurate account of how many runs a guy has knocked in than HR. But HR gives you a more accurate indication of the player's ability to hit for power than RBI. Does that make sense? So if I said RBI is more accurate than HR and left it at that with no explanation, whether I'm right or wrong depends on what I mean by more accurate."

Evidently you did, given this example. Stop being such a moron.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 10:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 10:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 4:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 2:30:00 PM (view original):
"Or 'geriatrics' realize tangible/measurable stats are far more accurate than subjective formulas."

Except I wasn't comparing RBI to home runs. I was comparing stats (which include both RBI and HR) to advanced metrics.

Given your obsession with advanced metrics, you should know the difference. Which proves, once again, that you're just trying to stir the pot for ***** and giggles.

Einstein, it's called an example. No one thought your were comparing RBI to HR.

"RBI will give you a more accurate account of how many runs a guy has knocked in than HR. But HR gives you a more accurate indication of the player's ability to hit for power than RBI. Does that make sense? So if I said RBI is more accurate than HR and left it at that with no explanation, whether I'm right or wrong depends on what I mean by more accurate."

Evidently you did, given this example. Stop being such a moron.

Dummy.

That's my example for you. So that you understood what I was asking.

You're a ******* retard.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 11:33:00 PM (view original):
The reason we're talking about what you said is because I asked you a question.

But, because you're either Helen Keller's son or someone's cat loose on a keyboard, you can't answer the very simple question.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/13/2016 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 11:33:00 PM (view original):
The reason we're talking about what you said is because I asked you a question.

But, because you're either Helen Keller's son or someone's cat loose on a keyboard, you can't answer the very simple question.

I answered it, in here, and a zillion times in the other thread. It's not my fault you can't read. Or that you blatantly ignore what's going on so you can continue to be a confrontational dipshit.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Go look in the other thread because I explained this to you there, when you showed you had no clue what subjective meant.

"Old school" stats are finite. They can be counted and there is no variance. If Player A has 35 home runs, he has 35 home runs. No matter who you ask, you'll get the same answer. Not so with advanced metrics.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Go look in the other thread because I explained this to you there, when you showed you had no clue what subjective meant.

"Old school" stats are finite. They can be counted and there is no variance. If Player A has 35 home runs, he has 35 home runs. No matter who you ask, you'll get the same answer. Not so with advanced metrics.

So, just to be clear, your argument is that, for example, RBI is a more accurate stat for determining how many runs a guy has knocked in than WAR or HR or stolen bases?

But not, "if we want to know which player is better overall, we should look at their RBI, since it will more accurately tell us who is better."

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 9:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 8:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2016 6:59:00 AM (view original):
I wonder why these people who are far more involved/informed about MLB than I keep talking about these useless stats? Just weird.

They know the audience.

Geriatrics don't change.

Or "geriatrics" realize tangible/measurable stats are far more accurate than subjective formulas.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/13/2016 11:15:00 AM (view original):
RBI isn't mentioned anywhere in that post. Once again...reading comprehension.

Unless you're saying "stats" is equal to "RBI"? As in RBI is the only stat there is?

For someone who's all about the stat sheets, you sure don't seem to know much about them.