balls in play and how they pertain to the statistics BABIP, FIP, and ERA

[OldFatGuy]

I'd agree with that, for the most part. But, it's the usage of the stat that makes it flawed. Using batting average to determine a player's power is a flawed usage of batting average. It doesn't make the stat itself flawed though.

OK, that's all I was trying to say earlier when I said all stats are flawed. Like my example above, all baseball stats don't include all the variables. So, to make a statement like "Pitcher's have little or no control" or "Catcher's have little or no effect on pitchers" or "The data shows clutch doesn't exist or perhaps only negative clutch exists". To make any of those statements based and any stats is the exact same thing I was saying above. The stats are flawed to draw those conclusions.

Again, this is where the defenseness comes from. I was in a discussion the other day talking about catchers. Within two posts of my opine that Nieves of the Nationals really handles pitchers well, TWO posted proclaiming this is a myth and the stats bear this out. Implying all along that I'm an idiot. I responded, and one them demanded proof. They want proof in the form of stats, but the stats don't tell the whole story (there, I didn't say flawed, that better?), and therein lies the conundrum.

[ohms_law]

I believe I wasn't talking to you.

HGM took the words right out of my mouth.

[belial]

Imagine that. Doesn't mean either one of you are correct though.

[HoustonGM]

Imagine that. Doesn't mean either one of you are correct though.

We're incorrect that anything posted on a public message board is fair game to be replied to by anybody? Gee.

That's what I think ohms was referring to when he said I took the words out of his mouth.

[belial]

Duh? I know what he meant. Doesn't make him any less wrong than when he said you can't get more than 3 k's in an inning.

Normally, when someone addresses someone else, it is quite obvious to those with an IQ above room temperature who is requested to respond. You two people sharing the same view is not suprising, nor does it mean you're any less wrong.

Now please stop hassling me.

[HoustonGM]

If you want to direct something to somebody and ONLY that person, and you do not want any other people to respond to it, PRIVATE MESSAGE IT. Anything posted publically is perfectly fine for ANYBODY to reply to, even if it was not directed at them.

What has ohms said here that was wrong? What you're arguing against is something that is wrong, but it's something nobody has said in this thread or in any of the linked articles. In fact, what you're saying is exactly what the linked articles say. You are arguing against strawmen.

[belial]

Uh.