I Got FJM'd!
The author of the post I FJM'd earlier this week FJM'd me back. I think I've been bitch-slapped. Actually, he makes some valid points, but it's too bad he seems so insulted.
The only point he makes that I'd slap him back for is his remarks about the Halos Heaven commenters. You guys (and gals) are a mature group...except for you, PhiSlamma.
over 2 years ago
WiHaloFan
91 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
TL;DR
Sorry WiHaloFan, I like you and your monkey but I think we should just let this one go. He obviously disagrees with us and most of us disagree with him. Nothing we can do about it.
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
There's nothing to let go.
There is nothing mean-spirited going on, this is just a way to debate online. I didn’t take any of his comments as personal attacks, nor do I think he took any of mine in that context either.
I'll be damned, that's a squirrel! Either way, I approve.
I guess my overall point was that we already rebutted this (and several more projections) and he still thinks he’s right for the most part. We can’t really change his mind until the season starts.
If any of you are looking for a more realistic look at our team and the AL for next year, I suggest looking at the season prediction in the Beckett magazine. They seem to have their heads screwed on straight…mostly.
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
by Commander_Nate on Jan 29, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions
Isn't FJM'ing just interpolative insulting, anyhow?
If the author is insulted, isn’t that a sign of success?
I don’t think his rejoinders are too off-key. He concedes some of your points responsibly, and he defends his own with a fair amount of background data and reference. As far as his zingers to the HH community, they’re mostly just a recapitulation of the very comments HH’ers threw at him — cherrypicked maybe, but reflective of a community that has your back.
He seems like a reasonable Angels fan to me, and one who wouldn’t at all be out-of-place here. It’s sort of a shame that the optimist vs pessimist flameouts tend to throw up firewalls between brand blogs in the Halosphere.
As I wrote above...
…I don’t think anyone was insulted or offended. At least that wasn’t my intention, nor I doubt his. All’s good in the blogoshere.
By the way, he’s not an Angels. He writes for a Phillies blog.
Sorry bob bear
I’ll make sure to remember your name, for all time, and bookmark your online diary.
What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.
It's explained in the article...
…FJM stands for “Fire Joe Morgan”. It means a point by point rebuttal of another’s comment/post.
There's a website called "Fire Joe Morgan" (no longer updated)
They used to do a line-by-line rebuttal to articles they found online. They were pretty funny (unlike mine).
He's now citing the PECOTA ratings as evidence that he's right....
seriously the complete ignorance that people have regarding our off-season is becoming laughable.
These people don’t consider Kazmir. They don’t consider Shields. They don’t consider anything aside from what ESPN or the fuckwads over at the sporting news have shoved down their throats.
The media are like lemmings. One guy writes some story and then 30 other people start parroting it until it is perceived as true. Then it must be debunked even though it was published with no real evidence in the first place.
People who think our off-season was “terrible” are fucking clueless and the next person who thinks that “we’ll see the standings this year as evidence” is some kind of reflection on that and can’t think farther than one season down the line in terms of overall organizational health is going to get virtually punched in the face.
Who are "these people" in this case?
I think it’s fair to consider both Kazmir and Shields for a minute, and then to conclude both of them are question marks.
Either could break down, either could rebound and excel, either could stay healthy but be mediocre.
Why should anyone assume they’re sure things? Why would they be “fuckwads” or “fucking clueless” to doubt their excellence or likelihood-to-succeed? Seems like there are reasonable arguments on both sides for both players, and no one can be certain of the result.
Tis not their doubts, but the supposed certainty of their predictions that causes
them to be “fuckwads.”
~Till the Halo burns out...
It's the consistent failure of all of these projections (not just this one) to predict the Angels' performance...
That makes them ludicrous as the basis for gauging how the team will do.
I mean we’re going on the 6th or 7th year now where the Angels are projected to be an 80’s or less win team and so far those predictions have been about as wrong as possible. Considering we still have 75% or 80% of the same roster that has been responsible for these results over the past few years, and that the few pieces added aren’t exactly slouches, it’s hard to believe the team will suddenly tank.
Let’s look at some of the other projections: The A’s winning the West? The Rays taking the East with the Yankees finishing 3rd? The Nationals winning 80 something games? REALLY?
All this sabremetrics, WAR, VORP, and other crap reminds me of alchemy or astrology. It’s all nice and fun and people put a lot of effort into it, but I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve yet to see a stat win or lose a championship or even a game. For the better part of a decade, it’s been completely wrong for the Angels and assuming it will suddenly be accurate is illogical.
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
by Commander_Nate on Jan 29, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
At some point it WILL be accurate.
That will be the point when the Halos, as a team, use an approach to managing game/series/season situations identical to the other teams and, hence, conform to the assumptions and biases inherent in the current models. In other words, when Scioscia retires.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Well then the models are flawed
If you’re wrong about something 6 or 7 times in a row, you aren’t simply unlucky, you’re clearly missing something.
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
by Commander_Nate on Jan 29, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
In that case...
At some point it WILL be accurate. That will be the point when the Halos, as a team, use an approach to managing game/series/season situations identical to the other teams and, hence, conform to the assumptions and biases inherent in the current models. In other words, when Scioscia retires.
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Uh oh...
/calls the people who run Shutter Island
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
by Commander_Nate on Jan 29, 2010 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
Hey lookit that.
I did the same thing, and got different results!
Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.
Yankees
They’re a lot more likely to finish 3rd than the Angels are to win only 76 games. They did finish 3rd in 2008. They could easily do the same if A.J. Burnett repeats his 2007, 2006, 2004 or 2003 seasons (i.e., misses a lot of time); the clock strikes midnight for Pettitte; and Javier Vasquez pitches the same way he did the last time he was a Yankee. The young Rays core could continue to mature, and easily jump back into the playoffs.
But just about every Angel regular would have to have an unprecedentedly bad season for the team as a whole to do that badly.
Agreed
Except Boston would have to completely fall apart as well for the Rays to make a serious move at number 1. Of course, that’s what I pray for every night.
I miss Hudler already.
by Teixeira Who? on Jan 29, 2010 11:48 PM PST up reply actions
Bitch-slapped while being lead by your bound hands to the wood shed.
Ouch.
Nice comment you posted in response on his website.
PECOTA. He really likes projections systems
Good thing for him he does not gamble. He would get fucked every year. Projections are such shit.
Should he happen to read this look at the season wins total put out by Vegas, bet according to your fabulous projection systems and prepare to watch your bank account disappear.
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
What really bothers me
is how he tries to pass off projections as “fact”. I’m not quite on the same page with you to say that projections are “shit”, as I think they can usually provide a basic baseline based on past performance. But fact? Give me a fucking break.
The only thing the Angels are guilty of is not having an “amazing” player at any one position. No amazing hitter, no amazing starter, no amazing reliever, and no amazing defender (though Aybar and Torii could arguably be there). No, just incredibly solid, 1-25. When a team has no noticeable weaknesses, yet no obvious game-changing players, you should be able to count on AT LEAST a winning record. A couple guys step up that you weren’t counting on (it always seems to happen) and just like that you’re at 90+ wins.
I don't how this might fit into a projection system
But considering no projection of the Halos in recent years have even been close, how much influence does the coaching impact projected results to real results. Nobody ever mentions the coaching staffs of teams when talking about potential projections.
Sosh
He’s brought a system of aggressive base-running, strong defense and quality pitching 1-5 in an era where the long ball is supposed to be king. The preoccupation of most organizations on power alone has them missing the 1st to 3rd that gives us an extra base on most singles when a man is on 1st. This management is what is taking this team beyond their pythag projections, but most outsiders just rate the popularity of the names on the roster and add up numbers like OPS and UZR to create a system that as of yet does not include the style of play that Mike Scioscia has brought to the Angles Organization.
If a man is on first and a base hit moves him one base and the guy hitting the single obviously gets one base that is two bases, but if the guy on 1st goes to3rd he makes that one singe worth 50% more value by going the extra base (3 bases vs. 2), but pythag probably doesn’t care.
by stereoscopic on Jan 29, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Evidence of the "Angel's Way"
is shown by how many other teams are starting to play the same way in recent years. I’ve heard Tampa Bay, Seattle, Oakland, White Sox, and Kansa City as being mentioned as trying to move towards a more “NL-style” of baseball of hit and run, pressure the defense, having a good defense and good pitching (i.e. moving away from the long ball) type of play.
Bill tried to address the argument that PECOTA doesn't predict the Halos
by saying, “here’s the standard deviation”. And gives the probabilities. Here’s my response:
Fine. They’re using a normal bell curve. So the Angels have beaten pythag/PECOTA for 5 years running, and most of them by more than 6 games (your definition of 1STDEV).
That means that each year is a .32 chance of going outside that one SD. So the probability of that happening five years in a row, strictly by chance is .32^5 or .003 or 0.3%.
Something is wrong with the models.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
Damn. That didn't work. The quote was supposed to have both sentences.
Fine. They’re using a normal bell curve. So the Angels have beaten pythag/PECOTA for 5 years running, and most of them by more than 6 games (your definition of 1STDEV).
That means that each year is a .32 chance of going outside that one SD. So the probability of that happening five years in a row, strictly by chance is .32^5 or .003 or 0.3%.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
I added a little emphasis to your point, we'll see if he acknowledges it.
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
by TheOptimist on Jan 29, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
Later on he asks someone, "If it's a fluke, I'd like to see your math".
I noted that I had already given him the math.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
I like his non-response to your point about PECOTA being broken when it comes to the Angels.
They really don’t have an answer for that.
~Till the Halo burns out...
It's actually kind of scary the lengths he has gone to in order to avoid
facing that statistic. The fact is we have exploded the “Heart” meter, we’re at +61 all time vs. PECOTA, +66 if you only count the last 6 years. He’s written an entire nother article about how people shouldn’t take PECOTA literally (no ****) and goes on to say that getting within a standard deviation of teams is their ultimate goal while ignoring the fact that the Angels beat the standard deviation 6 years running (again).
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
Nice post here by the way
And you yet again ignore the point that if you’d bet on the Angels to be within the standard deviation of their PECOTA projection every year for the past 6 years (a span of 12 possible records) you’d have been wrong 6 years in a row, always in the same direction. Eventually, hitting that 32% chance (or the 5% one, as they did last year) stops being luck.
However I have to point out to you and red floyd that you guys actually underrate the unlikely-hood of what the Angels have accomplished. After all, 32% is to either side of the standard deviation. Going consistently in the same direction is actually just a 16% chance. Food for thought, no?
~Till the Halo burns out...
Oh my dear sweet mercy...
did Mr. Baer really just argue that Figgins will be more valuable in ONE season (2010) than Pineiro, Rodney and Matsui will be in several seasons combined??
He’s lost all credibility, and I didn’t particularly disagree with his first article.
by shiftyeyedgoat on Jan 29, 2010 11:27 AM PST reply actions
WiHaloFan
Want to take this outside?
Its nice out today, we can take a walk and talk about our feelings…. I know a good sushi place too.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
Then afterwards we can engage in fisticuffs.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
It's not a nice day here...
…and I’m not traveling 2000 miles to get my ass kicked. I don’t care for sushi. And I’m already an emotional cripple (just ask my wife).
Can we just hug?
What bitch?
That’s an obviously male dog — unless you’re referring to the Peppermint Patty looking thing wearing the shorts & birkenstocks…
"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine."
by Quad Fin Rider on Jan 29, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
I couldn't resist commenting...
…with this:
Couple of points:
“So who replaces Lackey?”
Not Pineiro. The expectation is that one of Weaver, Santana or Kazmir will do that. For perspective, Lackey and Weaver’s stats up through age 26 are remarkably similar. My bet is on Weaver or Kaz.
“Figgins was second on the team in ‘09, and led the team every year from 2004-08. To argue that losing Figgins’ base running is not significant is to be very, very wrong.”
Over the last two years, Figgins’ success rate has been 71% and 72%. And he’s 31 years old, so that’s likely not going to get better. The “break even” point according to articles I’ve read on FanGraphs states that at a success rate of less than 75%, a baserunner is actually hurting his team (I’ll admit that I don’t know the math behind this, only that it is cited frequently).
“However, Saunders’ 2008 was fluky. His BABIP was a very low .267. His career average is .292. The odds of it being close to .300 are very high, since pitchers can’t control BABIP and the league average is .303.”
You cite a .300 BABIP as gospel a couple of times in the article, and that pitchers have no control of their BABIP. This makes absolutely ZERO sense. Pitchers typically settle in at their own career average given whether they’re a fly ball or a ground ball pitcher and other factors. I’ll be the first to admit .267 is unsustainably low, but BABIP is not “uncontrollable” by a pitcher. Are you telling me that Miguel Batista’s .316 BABIP over the last 5 years is due to bad luck as opposed to him sucking?
“I won’t advocate completely ignoring Kazmir’s production in his month-plus with the Angels, but I would suggest taking it with a huge grain of salt. We are dealing with a really small sample size here. As an Angel, Kazmir had a meager .261 BABIP and 83% strand rate. That is very unsustainable, since pitchers can’t control BABIP.
Additionally, Kazmir has only reached 30+ starts in two of the five seasons in which he has been starting regularly. He has durability issues. In 2008, he reached the seventh inning only 6 times in 27 starts (22%). Last season, he did it 9 times in 26 starts (35%). John Lackey, as an example, reached the seventh inning 19 times in 27 starts (70%)."
First, there you go again with the BABIP thing. Then, rather than address the ERA question, you go off on a tangent about durability. Which, by the way, is a valid concern, but was not the point at hand.
“UPDATE: The PECOTA projections are out. Angels: 76-86, 4th out of 4 in AL West.”
When was the last time PECOTA actually got the Angels right? Do tell.
Time to see what Wood's got!
WiHaloFan, burning bridges one day at a time.
The 2009 Pregame Picks Winner and Iron Man of Halos Heaven.com
That wasn't an FJM
An FJM is a witty, humorous, and logically incontrovertible line-by-line takedown of a piece of bad sports journalism. This was a witless, dull, heavily opinionated barb directed at a casual sports blog, all because someone got butthurt by a little bit of criticism.
Good thing the author doesn’t resort to ad hominems or guilt-by-association like we do at HH. Clearly we’re all morons because we are optimistic about a team in spite of negative projections. I just never saw it before. I always thought it was called being a fan.
by Suboptimal on Jan 29, 2010 2:11 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Agree
If you are going to burn bridges, witless Pecota pipsqueaks are good practice…
by Rev Halofan on Jan 29, 2010 2:19 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
rec'd for da truuuuuuuuth
the FJM sent this guy into an emotional tailspin, for al 15 of his readers to see.
What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.
by clover_black on Jan 29, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
What a sad, sad little man...
Regarding his total failure to correctly spell Pineiro (and his feckless mea culpa), one wonders how much equanimity he’d give to someone who repeatedly referred to him as “Bil Bear”.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
I before E
I often recieve criticism from my freinds and nieghbors because I, like many fluent English speakers, am deficeint at spelling.
Allen Iverson would love this...
If Allen Iverson was an Angels baseball player, he’d’ be holding a news conference right now and he’d be saying..
I know it’s important, I honestly do but we’re talking about projections. We’re talking about projections man. (laughter from the media crowd). We’re not talking about the actual 2010 standings. We’re talking about projections. Not what actually happens on the field, but we’re talking about projections right now.
http://twitter.com/truegrich
by True Grich on Jan 29, 2010 2:38 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
So in regards to him insisting that the Angels were indeed involved with Lee...
That’s a fair point. I’m having trouble finding off-season Angels-Lee pairings, so you and the quoted author could be right about that.
This is what he says in the comment section.
Also, the fruit analogy and jeopardy references? I love it.
He’ll go on to be pedantic about my misspelling of Joel Pineiro’s last name. As a writer, I absolutely should be responsible for spelling every word correctly. However, transposing e’s and i’s is a common mistake among many fluent English speakers. The author uses it as a weapon to assault my intelligence. It’s easy to spot weak arguments when the opposition uses personal attacks rather than factual argumentation.
It sure is a common mistake, not one you see professional writers make. It doesn’t insult his intelligence, it just shows how misinformed he really is about the Angel’s staff.
FJM him back, I can really go for another tantrum.
I miss Hudler already.
I agree WiHalo, let's have round 4!
I felt like posting that the 50th percentile is the MEDIAN not the mean, but it’s not incomprehensible after reading his ramblings that he’s delusional. You’d think for a guy who spouts off enough statistics about WAR and GAIBP and STFU that he would know what a mean is. That would be equivalent to a batting average. Shall we make it simple for him?
I love the bit about PECOTA being the expert when compared to a group that includes: Keith Law, Buster Olney, Rob Neyer and Steve Phillips. That’s like comparing a chick who’s a 7 next to four transvestites. At this point the 7 looks like a 10, but that doesn’t mean she’s really a 10!
NA, #34 SP, LAA
Light up the Halo for Nick!
More Howie please...
I felt like posting this over here as well.
The Angels win an inordinate amount of one-run games.
Tom Ruane found zero correlation between a team’s one-run success in one season to the next.
OK, gonna call your BS on this one. Angels record in non 1 run games in 2009: 70-47, .598 WPCT. 1 run games: 27-18, .600 WPCT.
2008: Non 1 run- 69-41, .627 WPCT. 1 run- 31-21, .596 WPCT.
2007: Non 1 run- 69-49, .584 WPCT. 1 run- 25-19, .568 WPCT.
2006: Non 1 run- 64-51, .556 WPCT. 1 run- 25-22, .531 WPCT.
2005: Non 1 run- 62-41, .601 WPCT. 1 run- 33-26, .559 WPCT.
2004: Non 1 run- 73-49, .598 WPCT. 1 run- 19-21, .475 WPCT.
In other words, you bought the "they’re just lucky" excuse hook line and sinker, and never even thought to actually look at the data, which wonder of wonders, shows the Angels WPCT in 1 run games to be equal or worse to their record in non 1 run games, exactly like your buddy Tom Ruane says should happen for winning teams. Better find another excuse, because this one just ran dry.
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
by TheOptimist on Jan 29, 2010 8:45 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Numbers dont lie, but then they don't predict the human element either
As a Statistical Process Control analyst part of my job is to interpret the data collected and create histograms detailing how well a process is in control. I also use the trends that appear to make determinations as to what the probable causes are for unnatural variations that appear in the charts. While I have not seen the PECOTA predictions for the entire league in regards how accurate they have been over a number of years, I assume from what you have said that they have been fairly accurate.
However, looking at how they have applied to the Angels over the last 6 years there is enough data collected to make an analysis. We have 6 groups of 162 samples. The nominal being the number of wins PECOTA has predicted with a +/- 6 upper and lower control limit. This is more than enough data to indicate that the trends that appear are not based on luck.
If the results had landed on either side of nominal during this period, one could make the argument that it was natural variation in the data. That however is not the case. The actual results have landed several points above the upper control limit in six straight samplings. That is not luck, 972 data samplings in six subgroups all but preclude the possibility of it being based solely on luck.
So despite the overall statistical effectiveness of PECOTA the Angels anomaly cannot be explained simply as an aberration. Why is that? It is most likely due to factors that the PECOTA is unable to correctly measure. The skill of a manager to create matchups that throws off the probability curve. A superior understanding of game strategy that is not definable by numbers and the skill in the system of be able to identify mechanical issues in a player’s game and improve them beyond what is normally seen. In short, Statistical Analysis of the PECOTA results strongly indicates that the reason it fails to properly predict the Angels success is that the organization is better at utilizing players and controlling game related situations than other organizations. The Human element cannot be quantified by numbers. This is why human Chess Masters consistently defeat their computer opponents.
The word is no......I am therefore going anyway
James T. Kirk
by ArchAngel_7 on Jan 29, 2010 8:46 PM PST reply actions 8 recs
Rec'd
We should put a name on this. “The Scioscia Imperative” or something along those lines.
~Till the Halo burns out...
How about the "Scioscia Variance Value" or SVV for short
The word is no......I am therefore going anyway
James T. Kirk
by ArchAngel_7 on Jan 29, 2010 10:17 PM PST up reply actions
Bingo
Luck has been one of the catch-all’s to understand the success the Angels have had the past decade. No evidence to explain actual results? Must be luck.
Want another? Small ball. Except now, base running and defense is back in vogue, apparently calculable and are regarded as the new under valued assets. Heck, even Billy Beane is allowing his players to steal bases (what happened to steals cost outs…) these days.
Ah well.
Great analysis AA7, particularly:
The organization (Angels) is better at utilizing players and controlling game related situations than other organizations.
by TheQuestforMerlin on Jan 29, 2010 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
If numbers don't lie
then why did Buffalo Bill say that you used “dishonest math?”
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Because his program *MUST* be right.
Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch
One could fly a 747
through the holes in his logic. Insisting on including Kazmir in last years rotation while saying that his starts with the team didn’t constitiute enough starts to be relavent to his stats. The points are mutually exclusive and illustrate the illogic of his position. He called my numbers dishonest simply because he had no other way to respond. He is a petty man working for a petty company. Why else close the thread after his last response. He got the “last word” and in his little mind that made him the winner.
The word is no......I am therefore going anyway
James T. Kirk
I'm sold
This post should be mandatory reading on every other team’s website, to be read before anyone is allowed to post “the Angels were lucky”.
"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon
by George Kaplan on Feb 2, 2010 6:53 AM PST up reply actions
Good God Baer keeps missing your point Optimist!
This is seriously like you telling someone “the sky is blue” and them responding “you’re wrong the ground is green”
I don’t understand why he can’t seem to comprehend that you’re not trying to say as a whole that PECOTA is wrong (in fact as he’s proven, compared to all the other supposed experts they’re pretty good) but for the Angels they suck. It’s a completely moot point that they got the Mariners and Rays correct. The only thing topic that’s being analyzed is how PECOTA has projected the Angels in the past.
"The Sky is Blue"... "You're wrong the ground is green" analogy
Also happens to make far more sense than his citrus/banana/apple analogy. Well done
I miss Hudler already.
by Teixeira Who? on Jan 29, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting discussion on AN about the PECOTA projections for the AL West
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2010/1/29/1274532/baseball-prospectus-pecota#storyjump
After the jump the poster makes some interesting comments regarding BP’s assumption in making their calculations. I wonder if similar disparities are made in the Halo’s projection?
Tucked within the thread a BP subscriber mentioned this as well
When they pushed these out yesterday, Christina Kahrl provided several caveats about how they haven’t completed projecting playing time, and now this today, according to BP’s Eric Seidman:
"Reading through the comments of yesterday’s announcement that the PECOTA projections have been released, it is evident that there is a lot of concern over several aspects of the data, ranging from the projected standings to individual quirks. We understand and appreciate that this reflects a lot of passion for what we do here at Baseball Prospectus. To be blunt: we messed up, and are working to fix the issues.
One issue involves the run environment: individual player projections do not match up with the run totals on the projected standings.
Another problem revolves around BABIP, as defense was being double-counted (double-counted).
These and other issues are being worked on and we hope to have an update provided by the end of the day, to unmess up. Please stay tuned for further updates."
Garbage in, Garbage out.........
The word is no......I am therefore going anyway
James T. Kirk
by ArchAngel_7 on Jan 29, 2010 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
I haven't read the whole response,
nor have I read all the comments of this post. All I have to say is that dude sounds like a bitter, under-educated, embarrassed, pathetic excuse for a writer who clearly doesn’t know anything about Angels players, Angels management, the Angels front office, or Halos Heaven. I don’t give a fuck if your weak-ass blog is somehow, someway connected with Baseball Prospectus. The fact that you need to enforce that fact in a response to a post on this website shows that you are inferior. WiHaloFan, keep keepin’ real in the Midwest for the Halos. It was very graceful of you to show so much respect for those guys, but I wouldn’t have given them a fraction of what you did.
RIP NA
Gonna respond here because comments are closed
on his blog at the moment (shocker!):
“@TheOptimist
Essentially, you’re saying that if you roll a die a few times in a row and get a 5 each time, we should label the die unfair. You should check out some of the casinos out there on the left coast and see how that blows over."
I’ll sneer at this for 2 reasons. #1, he assumes I live on the west coast. #2, if you beat the system as many times in a row as the Angels have at a casino, your ass would be in a room being interviewed about your methods and you’d probably be barred from ever visiting the casino again, because you’ve clearly got a way to beat the system.
shows the Angels WPCT in 1 run games to be equal or worse to their record in non 1 run games, exactly like your buddy Tom Ruane says should happen for winning teams.
“Is anyone arguing that the Angels are the Washington Nationals? You doth protest too much.”
His precious PECOTA says the Nats are 6 games better than the Angels. So yes, yes they are (and OMG did he walk into that one). BTW, way to dodge acknowledging my point, which was that his bogus BS about the Halos winning more than their share of 1-run games was utter nonsense and shows he has no more ability to analyze the Angels than PECOTA does.
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
Yeah i was thinking about pointing out the same thing
It was great when he made that comment…..i just had to laugh because of how silly it made him seem
OK... my two thoughts on this:
1) Crashburnalley has to be stoked that they got this many eyeballs to an article. If Bill Baer’s smart, he’ll keep posting anything involving “PECOTA” and “Angels.” We HHers are as relentless as he is. In fact, now that I think about it, WHF should set up an “interview” with him here. Why drive the traffic to him? We need the traffic here to stare at the P90X and Free Gold Yankee card ads.
2) Where’s mattwelch on all this? HH has been well-represented by some of our best posters (red, opt, 101, etc), but “this article,”: http://www.halosheaven.com/2009/10/4/1068714/haw-haw-baseball-prospectus along with all of the comments needs to be repeated to Bill Baer.
damn reply fail
I give up for the day. See you tomorrow.
by BruinHalo on Jan 30, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd for futility
"You gotta have nuts." - Torii Hunter / Part-Time Nemesis of the HH Reply Function
by Commander_Nate on Jan 30, 2010 12:30 PM PST reply actions
I wonder where the joy is for these guys?
I like stats as much as the next giuy (as long as the next guy isn’t a SABREmatrician). They’re for analyzing after the fact. As far as predictive, their utility is extremely limited. Further, who gets the joy in saying “see, I told you,” if they’re right and “it was only luck,” when they’re wrong?
To me, it is a soulless way to view the game. If I were a Mariners’ fan, one week of Lookout Landing would cure me from my baseball addiction. As for Mr. Bad News Baer, I absolutely loved the “’m right and if I repeat it enough, I win” logic.
I was going to conclude with a “guess we’ll have to wait and see” type line. But that plays into his whole PECOTA idiocy. I’ll enjoy the games as they come…win or lose. ot knowing how its all going to play out is part of the poetry of the game.
Wonder if these guys use Sabremetrics to determine if their wives are going to play around on them?
ISOP (inadequate size of penis) multiplied by OBB (overdrawn bank balance) will have a direct correlation with the amount of RTPB (riding the pool boy) shares.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
by Moondoggy on Jan 31, 2010 12:41 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Mr. Bad News Baer...
Rec’d for making me laugh out loud.
Sorry Seattle, 2010 still isn't your year.
by Teixeira Who? on Jan 31, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
