Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
RBI is a pretty good indicator of a guy's ability to plate baserunners. Sure, he has no control over who's on base when he hits - but he has control over getting those runners home in those situations.

Although for a guy who thinks sac flies and RBI groundouts have negative value, I wouldn't expect you to get that.

Of course he doesn't get it. He's a semi-functional retard. Sort of like Rainman counting matchsticks but freaking out when the water runs in the tub.

At least Rain Man can count with accuracy. If there are 100 matches, he'll say there are 100 matches.

BL will try to "enlighten" us as to why there are actually 116.6 matches.

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 bad_luck on 7/12/2016 12:45:00 PM (view original):
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."

No, you're obviously not clear.

Those were two separate posts. One was explaining why RBI has value. The other was stating that "old school stats", overall, are more accurate and trustworthy than advanced metrics.

I see you're still struggling with that reading comprehension thing.

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

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2016 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 12:28:00 PM (view original):
RBI is a pretty good indicator of a guy's ability to plate baserunners. Sure, he has no control over who's on base when he hits - but he has control over getting those runners home in those situations.

Although for a guy who thinks sac flies and RBI groundouts have negative value, I wouldn't expect you to get that.

Of course he doesn't get it. He's a semi-functional retard. Sort of like Rainman counting matchsticks but freaking out when the water runs in the tub.

At least Rain Man can count with accuracy. If there are 100 matches, he'll say there are 100 matches.

BL will try to "enlighten" us as to why there are actually 116.6 matches.

Well, yeah, you're right. He'll break out a formula, or two, to explain how when someone drops a box of 100 matches that the probabilities of it being exactly 100 are slim. That, due to manufacturing discrepancies, many boxes contained 97 to 106 matches. So, using his formulas, it is mostly likely to 100.6 matches.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2016 12:45:00 PM (view original):
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."

No, you're obviously not clear.

Those were two separate posts. One was explaining why RBI has value. The other was stating that "old school stats", overall, are more accurate and trustworthy than advanced metrics.

I see you're still struggling with that reading comprehension thing.

Clearly, I'm not getting your point.

Different stats do different things, and "more accurate" can mean different things depending on the stat.

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.

"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.

Mrs. BL:"Honey, come outside quick, and watch this beautiful sunset with me!"

BL: "Dammit woman, leave me alone! Can't you see I'm analyzing meteorological charts about the appropriate atmospheric refraction conditions that could produce aesthetically pleasing visual effects as the Sun declines over the western horizon???"

Mrs BL: "******* nerdboy"

Just to clarify...Mrs. BL is his mom, right?

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/12/2016 3:12:00 PM (view original):
Just to clarify...Mrs. BL is his mom, right?

Of course.

Duh.

I was wondering when we'd stop pretending that another human being could put up with him on a daily basis.

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.

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.