"Experience"
85 saves, 4.40 ERA
He has CloSSing ExpeRience, Auto-LocK CLosser PosItion!
Printable View
"Experience"
85 saves, 4.40 ERA
He has CloSSing ExpeRience, Auto-LocK CLosser PosItion!
"Moot"
I've reached the breaking point with ANY political party/movement that starts babbling about their 'Grassroots support'.
Extremists.
Oh god my eyes!Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Another politico-bit..."Hearts and minds."
That's absolutely annoying.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
In basketball it has some realism, and in football, it has some marginal realistic meaning, but in baseball there's absolutely no place for it.
This is easily one of the worst phrases in sports. In contrast to what I said above, this stuff doesn't even have meaning in sports that are more individually oriented, like basketball and football. Like a guy with no power is suddenly going to turn into a 40-HR power type guy, or a one dimensional bench scrub is going to suddenly turn into a triple-double guy, or a special teams player is going to step into an LB position and pick off a pass and put tons of pressure on a QBQuote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
More sports phrases that really need to die...
"Giving 110%"
"...you know..." (used at least 10 times in 90% of player interviews)
And some words:
"Scrappy"
"Grind/grinder/grinding"
"Will" (the noun form)
"Victor Zambrano" :p
RE 'Knows how to win'
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
There is clearly such a thing as 'knowing how to win'. It's simply making the right play in the situation.
An outfielder throwing to third base when there is no chance to get the runner out, missing his cut off man, and allowing a runner to go from first to second is the wrong play and makes you less likely to win.
A batters approach at the plate in certain situations. For example, late in a tie game with a runner at second. By most statistical measures the batter will not be successful greater than 60% of the time (getting a hit, walk, HB, etc). But even with a 60% expected failure rate the player can still be productive. Instead of swinging at the first pitch, which happens to be a slider on the inside corner, and grounding it to the left side, he can take the pitch and wait for a better pitch to hit. With two strikes he can hit the same pitch foul instead of grounding to the left side and maybe the next pitch will be more hitable or a pitch he is more likely to hit to the right side.
Maybe 'Knows how to win' isn't the best way to phrase it. But anyone who knows baseball knows the value of having players that make the right decision in tough spots.
irreguardless, oh..and Bucky f'n Dent..
There are intangibles that nobody can put a number or stat to and quantify. I believe those who can't or refuse to understand them, probably haven't truly played organized sports. There are people who are just winners and will be winners wherever they go. Maybe not winning the whole thing, but they have an ability to improve those around them largely because of their work ethic, leadership abilities, game knowledge, and confidence. Jeter and Pedroia are two examples. If they weren't on such talented teams, I firmly believe they'd find a way to win wherever they were. Again, maybe not the championship but they'd improve their team with their intangibles greatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
I agree in baseball this is harder than the other sports. McNabb is a guy who just knows how to win. He'd win wherever he plays. Same with a guy like Ray Lewis and Troy Palamalu. Ben Rothlisberger i'd put in there too. Basketball has become such an individual sport that its harder to find these people. Chris Paul would go in that category. A guy like Rasheed Wallace would go in this category to a lesser extent.
Its like porn...you know it when you see it. Some refuse to believe the eye test and will resort to their stats to try and diffuse this as myth. Thats fine...they can try all they want but to those who have seen it they know it to be true.
"knows how to win", "knows how to play the game"...these are cliche's for the most part but there is fact to them as well in some instances.
Can you provide any players that did this (in baseball)? You can't cite Pedroia and Jeter, obviously, because there's no evidence of this since they already play on great teams and haven't switched teams. But, show me multiple players with these qualities that have improved their teams wherever they went, and maybe I'll believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Seems like Manny Ramirez makes players better (or play better atleast). Got the Dodgers rolling when he went over and got them into the playoffs (sweeping the Cubs I might add :D).
Was there for the Red Sox World Series titles, made the playoffs with the Indians. Always been a winner.
The Indians and Red Sox were each great teams with or without Manny.Quote:
Originally Posted by bucher34
The Dodgers were 54-54 before the trade and 30-24 after the trade, which can be nearly completely attributed to Manny hitting like Babe Ruth and knocking Juan Pierre out of the lineup, and not him "knowing how to win."
*Seems* is the key word. I'm not saying I believe it.
I don't think the Indians would have been great without Manny and until Manny got to the BoSox, they hadn't won a title. Not saying it is because of him, but he's won everywhere he's been. I don't know if I believe the whole theory until it is proven to me, but he is just an example of winning, most likely by coincidence, but nonetheless.
Take a look at those Indians teams sometime. They were ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by bucher34
And Manny wasn't the sole player brought in prior to the title. The team had been revamped.Quote:
and until Manny got to the BoSox, they hadn't won a title.
I'm not looking for examples of players winning. Perhaps I should be more clear. I'm looking for examples of players who improve their teams everywhere they go beyond the performance they bring. Players that "find a way to win" regardless of the talent of their team.Quote:
Not saying it is because of him, but he's won everywhere he's been. I don't know if I believe the whole theory until it is proven to me, but he is just an example of winning, most likely by coincidence, but nonetheless.
If there's a perfectly sound explanation for why the new team improved, such as Manny Ramirez OPS+'ing 219 and knocking out-machine Juan Pierre to the bench, I'll believe that over "It's because that dude knows how to win and he improved his teammates by virtue of just being there."
I'm on the same page.
Its not so easy in baseball, and one player alone can't and won't make them a 'winner' per se', especially year in and year out. But I do believe there are players who combine talent, leadership qualities, and the ability to will others to perform better. Some may not have terrific numbers either. I'd put Chase Utley in the conversation. A player like Mike Lowell. Rickey Henderson was someone who 'knew how to win'. Gary Sheffield is a good example. I believe he had outstanding leadership abilities and players wanted to play with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Its hard to put pitchers in this category of player as they aren't on the field everyday. Its hard to quantify it, but I do believe there are players that are plain winners. Just as in the business world, there are those that will succeed everywhere they go...same goes in sports IMO. Having played organized baseball up until the collegiate level, as well as other organized sports...i believe I have seen this.
GARY SHEFFIELD? :confused: The guy who made fielding errors on purpose because he wanted to be traded? And repeatedly accused managers of racism? That guy's a great leader who can will others to win? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
How are you "identifying" these players? Gut instincts? Are you able to throw out ANYTHING to support this?
Yes gut instincts. As I said earlier, its like porn...you know it when you see it. No I can't quantify it. Sheffield was a tough one to put on the list because he has had a falling out everywhere he's been it seems. From everything i've seen & heard he seems like a leader, who is a winner that people like to play with.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well, sorry, that just doesn't pass the smell test. If there's absolutely no evidence in support of your view, and especially considering that you've never played with these guys so you really have no idea, I'm not buying it. "You know it when you see it" is not a valid argument because it's entirely perception-based.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And everything I've heard is pretty much the exact opposite of what you've heard, apparently, and that he's had a "falling out everywhere he's been it seems" would support the things I've heard.Quote:
Sheffield was a tough one to put on the list because he has had a falling out everywhere he's been it seems. From everything i've seen & heard he seems like a leader, who is a winner that people like to play with.
You're entitled to your own opinion. Even if its wrong ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't think you should be calling somebody wrong when you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
uh oh...
Exactly what I was thinking. This Sheffield argument is a dead-end for those that are "for".
you mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
"Ruh Roh!"
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/...oo-works-4.jpg
I found this article regarding productive outs.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...oductive-outs/
Now, it is late and I'm getting ready to go to bed, so I can't delve into this as much as I'd like but I'll pull out these quotes
This is similar to but not exactly what I was talking about.Quote:
Productive outs are defined as advancing the runner with the first out of the inning, scoring a runner with the second out, or when a pitcher sacrifice bunts with the second out.
Yeah, getting on base is better than making an out. No argument here.Quote:
Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277.
Strawman argument. No one is saying this. ;)Quote:
There are many problems with productive outs. The first, and most obvious, is how it credits a one-out sac bunt as a productive out if it's by the pitcher, but not by any other player. An out by a pitcher that advances a runner is certainly more productive than one would normally expect, but to include it in a team statistic is ridiculous. If POP is supposed to help teams win, does that mean you should pinch-hit a pitcher every time you have a runner on and one out, so they can sac bunt?
Yeah, there could be a better definition of a productive out. And I don't think anyone things that finding a magical hitter who has a .874 POP is going to add 73 runs to a teams offense in the course of a year.Quote:
There is a very small value to tracking productive outs, if altered from it's current form, and using it as a value statistic, rather than a skill statistic, since a productive out is worth more than a non-productive one. However, it shouldn't be viewed as a shortcut to victory, or emphasized as a strategy. It doesn't work.
But, 'since a productive out is worth more than a non-productive one' if you have two otherwise equal hitters the one with the higher POP would have more value to the team.
I know how the play the game, so does that mean I can make the Dodgers go 30-24? :D
But do you know how to WIN?Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
will
as in tyler hansbrough willed jesus back to life so that the world could be saved or that tim tebow willed the cure for small pox
:eek: That is my weakness! Oh crap, I don't know how to win, so I may be able to go 8-8 with 6 HRs, but I guess that is not enough effort... I need to learn how to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There's alot in life that can't be explained. I never said you were wrong either...only that I you are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
call me naive but I think you are saying he is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Yeah, also can't forget "just watch the game" or "sabermetric geeks."Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
This is the sort of thing that Bill James once described as a "bullsh*t dump". People use this type of "logic" to explain why player A is better than player B, despite the fact that player B has better stats. This BS dump includes things like clutch ability, character, determination, leadership, etc., and it is just the fact that these things cannot be measured that make them the last resort for anyone that can't make a structered argument, and/or cannot use factual data. Its a combination of myth, legend, and pure subjective speculation, in other words.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
When someone claims that Brooks Robinson was a better player than Mike Schmidt, they support this inane position by claiming that he was a clutch player (while Schmidt mainly tanked in the clutch...just check postseason stats), Brooks was a leader, Brooks was a winner, Brooks had character, blah, blah, blah. It can be proven that, in everything that can be measured, Schmidt was a far, far better player. So the proponent of the argument is forced to rely on conjecture...things that, real or unreal, cannot be measured.
Personally, I believe that there is such a thing as "leadership", and certainly "clutch play" is a reality. The thing is, especially in baseball, leadership is making a big play, getting a key hit, that sort of thing. Leadership does not make anyone else play better. Getting a clutch hit is a form of leadership, at least to some of us. But it does not somehow inspire anyone else to perform at a level measureably higher than normal.
Let me quote Bill James, briefly, talking about clutch performances. "Baseball men often like to attribute the success or failure of a team to clutch performances. Those of us who study baseball systematically know that this is largely untrue, that the number of runs a team scores is a predictable outcome of their hits, their walks, their home runs, and their other offensive accomplishments-and further, that the number of games that the team wins is largely a predictable outcome of their runs scored and runs allowed."
I too would like to see some evidence that Jeter or Pedroia (or McNabb, or Lewis, etc) have made others better players, or that they possess some innate ability to "win", where others will fail, and lose. Had these two played for Washington in 2008, the Nats would have probably won 4 or 5 more games. They would not have been magically transformed into division winners just because Pedroia and Jeter "really know how to win".
I remember, years ago, people would talk about NBA star Larry Bird, and how he knows how to win, and how he made his teamates better. Larry Bird was one helluva basketball player, let me tell you. He was a hard worker by all accounts (his workouts were the stuff of legend), he had uncanny instincts, he was fundamentally sound, and he had great TALENT.
That being said, Larry Bird did not make anyone else better. He did not make Danny Ainge a better three point shooter. He did not make Robert Parish a better rebounder, or improve Kevin McHale's post play. Bird did make it easier, at times, for Ainge to score, or Parish to rebound. Because he was so good, he did open up the game for others, i.e., made it easier for them to produce. His passing skills led to easy layups for others. This, in the strictest sense, does not make anyone better, it just makes things easier for them.
Football. You often hear it said that one great player makes another better. Not true, for the same reasons. We also hear how a strong running game makes the passing game better. This, again, is untrue. A good running game makes it easier to pass because the defense has to focus on the ground game. But a good running game does not make the QB better at throwing a football, and does not make a receiver better at catching one, or running his pass routes.
I realize that the "makes better" debate, as outlined here, is dangerously close to just being an argument over semantics. I have no problem with how the phrase is normally used in sports, because what it really means is that this player makes "things easier" for other teammates. It's just another worn out cliche, thats all.
Baseball traditionalists denounce sabermetrics proponents as wannabe's who never played the game, and use frivolous stats in lieu of real baseball knowledge. Sabermetricians and stat geeks ridicule the other side, claiming that the new age stats provide greater insight into what really matters in the game. Both sides believe that they are superior, for different reasons.
Those that place a lot of stock in things like "leadership", "inspires confidence in teammates", "character", etc., are just as bad, if not worse. They seem to think that, because they are so much smarter than anyone else, they can see these things, when no one else does. They can tell who is a "winner", when none of the rest of us can. They can detect who is making their teammates better, even though it is invisible to everyone else. To me, these individuals place far too much emphasis on these "intangibles", and far too little emphasis on factual evidence.
To sum up the bullsh*t dump of intangibles, I will quote Bill James again. "It's a dangerous area to get into, because when you reach into the bullsh*t dump, you're not going to come out with a handful of diamonds".
Extremely well put.
Football and basketball are different from baseball in those certain aspects that you were discussing.
Larry Bird gave guys like Danny Ainge the opportunity to shoot the three in crunch time by drawing defenders when it mattered most. Kobe Bryant takes over the game in tight situations being a distraction and distributing the ball to the open man. They don't necessarily make the "skills" of the players better, but they give them the opportunities to use their skills.
NFL is the same way. The so-called "Two Minute Drill". Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman, etc. Those guys could/can will their teams to victory by opening up opportunities. They make the tight passes in the hurry-up. They don't get flustered. They keep their teammates calm and confident. They don't improve the "skills" of the players, they just give them the opportunity to use those skills.
Well, didn't I say that already?Quote:
Originally Posted by bucher34
I agree. Thats exactly what I said...or think I said. They are not actually making anyone else better, in the strictest sense. They are making it easier for other players to perform better.
Additionally, I want to point out that baseball requires less teamwork than any of the other major team sports. Baseball is, in many ways, an individual sport, to a point. Basketball requires that plays be run constantly, and team play on defense as well (helping, switching, etc.) In football, of course, all eleven men on offense have a role to play each time the ball is snapped. Same on defense.
Baseball requires no such cooperative effort. There is more teamwork in doubles in tennis than there is in baseball. Thats yet another reason that the impact of the so-called intangibles are, for the most part, minimal at best, in the sport of baseball. Thats if they truly even exist at all.
Obviously there are alot of people who believe it to be true, or there wouldn't be so many complaining about the catch phrases "he knows how to win" or "clutch" and the like. HGM, you argue that I cna't prove it...well, so many believe it...you prove it! Prove that it isn't true.
Fact is you can't prove one way or the other. You are entitled to your opinion, that is all. As I said, you are entitled to opinions, even if they are wrong. As for the catch phrases...having played organized sports I will say that while overused, I do believe there are instances where they are true. Thats all.
That's dumb, there is no logical reason to think it should be proven not to be true before it is regarded as inaccurate. Common sense let's us know that it must be proven before it's accepted, not disproven before it's rejected.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Well it's about as close to being disproven as it can be, whereas there basically is nothing to suggest it is true. Mostly all numbers and statistics point to it not being true.