Can you think of a worse argument?
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...c.php?t=326562
Quote:
Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage.
So, Raines refused to run in situations where it was bad to run, or where he wasn't confidant he could make it...so...that means he isn't as good as he could've been.
Screw Raines for being too concerned about not making outs.
Whether or not you think Raines is a Hall of Famer, I think most of us could agree that this is quite possibly the worst possible argument against him.
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Quote:
I don't understand what you mean by '...so...that means he isn't as good as he could've been.'
That's basically what that guy is saying. He's saying that if Raines ran whenever he had the chance to, he'd have been a better player and thus gotten his Hall of Fame vote. But the truth is, if he had done that, he would've been less successful at stealing and thus, a worse player.
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
You're making the assumption that stealing more at a lower rate is more valuable, when multiple studies have shown that it isn't. Raines stolen base value is derived because he stole a large amount of bases at a very high rate. Had he stolen more bases at a lower rate, he'd have lost some value. That's because getting caught stealing is worse for a team's run scoring chance than stealing a base is good for it. It takes a little over 2 successful steals to make up for 1 caught stealing.
And again, this goes into another poorly worded statement by a writer. Running in EVERY situation, as the writer is advocating, is a horrible strategy. And, in fact, Rickey Henderson did NOT run in every situation.
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Put it this way.
Why would it be good to run in situations where either
a) It isn't good to run
-or-
b) you don't think you could make it
?
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yankee hater
1. You're making a fatal assumption. It's not a fact that they were 'bad' situations. You just tried to state your own opinion as a fact.
I'm not saying that he never ran in a bad situation, or that there were no bad situations in which he did run, but this writer is saying that Raines should've ran whenever he had the opportunity to. That is a horrible strategy, and if Raines did that, he'd have been a much less valuable player.
Quote:
2. Why would it matter if you 'think' you can or not?
For one who believes in the value of intangibles, I would think confidence would me more important to you.
Quote:
3. Read my earlier post where I explain the math of the this. Just because I'm not a member of sabr doesn't make my mathematical argument less valid.
I already read it and responded. More steals at a lower success rate is not necessarily more valuable than less steals at a higher success rate.
Tim Raines stole A LOT of bases at a very high success rate. That is extremely valuable. To argue that he shouldn't make the Hall, as this writer is doing, because he didn't run MORE, is crazy. For a guy that attempted to steal over 900 times, it's pretty wild to suggest that he isn't a Hall of Famer because he didn't run more, don't you think? I can't think of a worse anti-Raines argument than that. There are some valid anti-Raines arguments. This isn't one of them.
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yankee hater
You said Raines is better than Coleman as a basestealer. Coleman converted .755 of his extra attempts, so by your logic, Raines should match or better that rate.
What? I really am not following you here. Coleman stole more bases per 162 games than Raines, at a lower overall rate. Coleman's stolen base attempts above that of Raines came at a rather mediocre 75% rate. Raines stolen base attempts, overall, came at an 85% rate. I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
Quote:
This 'lower rate' percentage is well over the threshold to be a mathematical advantage.
Depends on the year, but on average, it isn't "well" over the threshold. It's just over the threshold (which is about 72 or so percent on average, but there's years where it is as high as 75%).
Quote:
Hurting your team by not wanting to lose your sb% record is a big problem.
And can anybody at all verify that that is what Tim Raines did? Just because this schmoe of a writer said so doesn't make it true. Tim Raines attempted over 900 steals. 900! To think that Raines was conservative on the basepaths and only trying to preserve his stolen base percentage is a huge stretch. There's only a handful of guys in history that ran as much as Raines did.
Do you honestly believe that Tim Raines, he of the 954 stolen base attempts, did not run enough, and hurt his team because of it (enough to outweigh the positives of stealing 800 bases at an 85% clip)?
Re: Can you think of a worse argument?
Man you two need your own thread! I mean c'mon yankee hater keeps prodding HGM "playing devil's advocate" and HGM keeps taking the bait. It's getting really old.
