Breakdown tn vs kentucky (merged)

#126
#126
hatvol96 said:
The scoreboard defines the game. What a bunch of dweebs who pleasure themselves to their dogeared copies of Moneyball do or don't think means nothing to anyone inside the game. The next time a D-I coach of any merit does anything other than laugh at guys like Pomeroy and Sagarin will be the first.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, remember bill belichek and theo epstein? Remember how the white sox GM and about, oh, like every other team in baseball suddenly went to sabermetrics after moneyball came out and now you see guys signed under the exact same methods that the book detailed?

Apparently you do not and are honestly stuck in believing that the scoreboard is somehow not the cumulative result of many of the statistics that pomeray and sagarin(who is awful) speak of.

Do you know what correlations means? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get how you--someone who should apparently care deeply about the game and all advancements involved in it--seem to want to ignore something so simple as how certain trends lead to wins.

Did you guys get beat up by computers or something?
 
#128
#128
BigPapaVol said:
You are talking to the wrong guy about being afraid of numbers. Apoutig stupid offensive bad defensive efficiency numbers or TO % without context is pure stupidity. Crap like Pomeroy gibberish is for people who want to sound like they can talk basketball. Keep it coming.
Click to expand...


I'm not even talking about YOU being afraid of numbers, in fact I was agreeing with you.

Pomeroy is gibberish for people who don't understand context, I totally agree.

How is offensive efficiency stupid though? Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone concludes that. You obviously know what it is, so why is it that you think it is stupid, out of curiousity?

If you dont know, please feel free to respond with another gibe or something churlish, thank you.
 
#129
#129
lidderer said:
Hahaha, remember bill belichek and theo epstein? Remember how the white sox GM and about, oh, like every other team in baseball suddenly went to sabermetrics after moneyball came out and now you see guys signed under the exact same methods that the book detailed?

Apparently you do not and are honestly stuck in believing that the scoreboard is somehow not the cumulative result of many of the statistics that pomeray and sagarin(who is awful) speak of.

Do you know what correlations means? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get how you--someone who should apparently care deeply about the game and all advancements involved in it--seem to want to ignore something so simple as how certain trends lead to wins.

Did you guys get beat up by computers or something?
Click to expand...
Belicheck and Epstein coach Division I basketball? They must be awfully busy with two jobs.

I understand correlations just fine. The difference is, I understand what I'm seeing when I watch a basketball game. I don't need to go rummaging through stacks of numbers to figure out why Team A beat Team B.
 
#130
#130
lidderer said:
Hahaha, remember bill belichek and theo epstein? Remember how the white sox GM and about, oh, like every other team in baseball suddenly went to sabermetrics after moneyball came out and now you see guys signed under the exact same methods that the book detailed?

Apparently you do not and are honestly stuck in believing that the scoreboard is somehow not the cumulative result of many of the statistics that pomeray and sagarin(who is awful) speak of.

Do you know what correlations means? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get how you--someone who should apparently care deeply about the game and all advancements involved in it--seem to want to ignore something so simple as how certain trends lead to wins.

Did you guys get beat up by computers or something?
Click to expand...

Please. Stats tell stories after the fact that basketball people know by watching. Watchers don't get the lies inherent In stats. Coaches know stats lie as badly as any HS coach to a scout. Trusting stats is dangerous and stupid. That's why teams use scouts and films instead of box scores and Pomeroy.
 
#131
#131
lidderer said:
I'm not even talking about YOU being afraid of numbers, in fact I was agreeing with you.

Pomeroy is gibberish for people who don't understand context, I totally agree.

How is offensive efficiency stupid though? Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone concludes that. You obviously know what it is, so why is it that you think it is stupid, out of curiousity?

If you dont know, please feel free to respond with another gibe or something churlish, thank you.
Click to expand...

Offensive efficiency is worthless in that it doesn't account for the 4000 variables that might change it game in and game out. It clearly tells a story, but an incomplete, hence essentially worthless, one.
 
#132
#132
lidderer said:
Hahaha, remember bill belichek and theo epstein? Remember how the white sox GM and about, oh, like every other team in baseball suddenly went to sabermetrics after moneyball came out and now you see guys signed under the exact same methods that the book detailed?

Apparently you do not and are honestly stuck in believing that the scoreboard is somehow not the cumulative result of many of the statistics that pomeray and sagarin(who is awful) speak of.

Do you know what correlations means? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't get how you--someone who should apparently care deeply about the game and all advancements involved in it--seem to want to ignore something so simple as how certain trends lead to wins.

Did you guys get beat up by computers or something?
Click to expand...
Yeah, look how great the Moneyball draft class was. I'm sure the boys in Cooperstown are already getting Nick Swisher's plaque ready. I'm also sure Theo Epstein's success has nothing to do with having an almost $200 mil payroll. Oh, guess who beat Boston this year? One of the teams in baseball that eschews that numeric driven voo doo and actually has baseball people making personnel decisions.
 
Last edited:
#134
#134
lidderer said:
I'm not even talking about YOU being afraid of numbers, in fact I was agreeing with you.

Pomeroy is gibberish for people who don't understand context, I totally agree.

How is offensive efficiency stupid though? Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone concludes that. You obviously know what it is, so why is it that you think it is stupid, out of curiousity?

If you dont know, please feel free to respond with another gibe or something churlish, thank you.
Click to expand...
If one needs numbers to tell them who is and who is not efficient offensively, they probably should just pass on watching games and take up knitting.
 
#135
#135
BigPapaVol said:
Please. Stats tell stories after the fact that basketball people know by watching. Watchers don't get the lies inherent In stats. Coaches know stats lie as badly as any HS coach to a scout. Trusting stats is dangerous and stupid. That's why teams use scouts and films instead of box scores and Pomeroy.
Click to expand...

This is true for really perceptive fans, which I get the sense that a few of you probably are, but more often fans who just watch the game miss out on the finer points, or the big picture, as it were.

Trusting the wrong stats is incredibly dangerous and stupid, definitely.

If you really believe that teams don't ALSO use statistics you are way behind, man. OF COURSE game film is first and foremost, that's a no-brainer, but to say it is 'all' is to put yourself behind.

I'll take a scout that is relentless in his evaluation of visual evidence AND who takes account of stats, you can stick with your guy who just watches the games and thinks that offensive rating is a dragons and dungeons thing.
 
#136
#136
lidderer said:
If you really believe that teams don't ALSO use statistics you are way behind, man.
Click to expand...
See, that's the difference. Guys like Maggard and I actually know what teams use in their evaluations. We don't have to "believe" anything.
 
#137
#137
Just aren't many folks out there talking turnover percentage or forced turnover percentage, unless poking fun at the stats geeks.

Nobody ignores them, but take them with a serious grain of salt, as they should.
 
#139
#139
hatvol96 said:
If one needs numbers to tell them who is and who is not efficient offensively, they probably should just pass on watching games and take up knitting.
Click to expand...

Well in that sense, sure, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that even a diehard vol fan has seen more than 8 boston college games this year. And let's say they have seen 8, which 8 were those? and what happened in those 8 that also carried over into the other 5 or 6? What didnt?

No one 'needs' numbers, I could get along confidently without them, but they increase your knowledge across-the-board. As that other guys says though, of course if you pay attention to the wrong ones you are heading down an ugly road. It just takes some smarts to figure out what those stats are.
 
#140
#140
hatvol96 said:
See, that's the difference. Guys like Maggard and I actually know what teams use in their evaluations. We don't have to "believe" anything.
Click to expand...

I don't have to 'believe' anything either. I was clearly referring to that other guy's belief.
 
#142
#142
joeydupree said:
Time to throw in the towel...
Click to expand...

This is probably the problem with sportsfans today: you think it's always one-side vs another-side, and one side is either wholly right or wholly wrong. That's really dense and does a disservice to the subject.

Sometimes both sides are right in different ways, wrong in others. How can you expect to understand more about anything if you just think what you think you know is all there is to know?

I think it would be interesting and informative to learn some insights from hat or that kentucky guy, instead of just 'numbers are for nerrrds!' or old-hat like that.
 
#143
#143
lidderer said:
Well in that sense, sure, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that even a diehard vol fan has seen more than 8 boston college games this year. And let's say they have seen 8, which 8 were those? and what happened in those 8 that also carried over into the other 5 or 6? What didnt?

No one 'needs' numbers, I could get along confidently without them, but they increase your knowledge across-the-board. As that other guys says though, of course if you pay attention to the wrong ones you are heading down an ugly road. It just takes some smarts to figure out what those stats are.
Click to expand...

How we're going to do against BC is much more about individual matchups and team execution than a bunch of season long stats. It's not even close.
 
#144
#144
BigPapaVol said:
Just aren't many folks out there talking turnover percentage or forced turnover percentage, unless poking fun at the stats geeks.

Nobody ignores them, but take them with a serious grain of salt, as they should.
Click to expand...

Ya I mean we're not even really disagreeing here other than some barbs. And it's probably safe to assume that someone making fun of a 'stat geek' is usually doing so based on insecurity and traditionalism rather than responding with something intelligent--always a true mark of a winning side: names!

You should certainly take some stats with a grain of salt, but really, turnover percentage is for stat geeks? That seems like a really basic stat, and one that historically does a really good job in showing you who has a higher chance of success. That's weird that people would dismiss that.
 
#145
#145
BigPapaVol said:
How we're going to do against BC is much more about individual matchups and team execution than a bunch of season long stats. It's not even close.
Click to expand...

That's almost my exact point. How do you think people are going to determine how we matchup if they've only seen like 6 games(I doubt most fans have even see 2 BC games, let alone 6, btw)?

Obviously certain scouts that watch game film AND follow stats will(should at least) have better insights, but I'm talking about someone who might have another profession or what have you. I watch a lot of games AND track a lot of stats, and I'm pretty sure I could pick 20 games better than someone who claims to just love watching the games and thinks that stats are for idiots.

Of course I'd understand why no one would want to risk that possible embarrassment. But since we're talking about 'the scoreboard' being the only thing that matters, I figure I could show how my appreciation of stats does just that: matters in the scoreboard.
 
#146
#146
lidderer said:
Ya I mean we're not even really disagreeing here other than some barbs. And it's probably safe to assume that someone making fun of a 'stat geek' is usually doing so based on insecurity and traditionalism rather than responding with something intelligent--always a true mark of a winning side: names!

You should certainly take some stats with a grain of salt, but really, turnover percentage is for stat geeks? That seems like a really basic stat, and one that historically does a really good job in showing you who has a higher chance of success. That's weird that people would dismiss that.
Click to expand...

But to hats point, who needs stats to see who can't handle of doesn't value the ball?
 
#148
#148
lidderer said:
That's almost my exact point. How do you think people are going to determine how we matchup if they've only seen like 6 games(I doubt most fans have even see 2 BC games, let alone 6, btw)?

Obviously certain scouts that watch game film AND follow stats will(should at least) have better insights, but I'm talking about someone who might have another profession or what have you. I watch a lot of games AND track a lot of stats, and I'm pretty sure I could pick 20 games better than someone who claims to just love watching the games and thinks that stats are for idiots.

Of course I'd understand why no one would want to risk that possible embarrassment. But since we're talking about 'the scoreboard' being the only thing that matters, I figure I could show how my appreciation of stats does just that: matters in the scoreboard.
Click to expand...

This little charade has been tried before. Stats guys lose this one because they don't get basketball.
 
#149
#149
lidderer said:
This is probably the problem with sportsfans today: you think it's always one-side vs another-side, and one side is either wholly right or wholly wrong. That's really dense and does a disservice to the subject.

Sometimes both sides are right in different ways, wrong in others. How can you expect to understand more about anything if you just think what you think you know is all there is to know?

I think it would be interesting and informative to learn some insights from hat or that kentucky guy, instead of just 'numbers are for nerrrds!' or old-hat like that.
Click to expand...

Sounds about like politics to me...
I was just messing with you, I KNOW you won't throw the towel in...
I commend you for your efforts, keep it up brother...
As for me personally, I am one of those "watchers." I'll remember certain statistics at times because I just do, but I know what's going on without stats as afore mentioned.
Maybe you didn't mean to direct the "dense" comment towards me specifically, but to stereotype a person such as I (because I said throw the towel in?)would prove to be pretty dense, in my opinion...


J D
 
#150
#150
hatvol96 said:
Yeah, look how great the Moneyball draft class was. I'm sure the boys in Cooperstown are already getting Nick Swisher's plaque ready. I'm also sure Theo Epstein's success has nothing to do with having an almost $200 mil payroll. Oh, guess who beat Boston this year? One of the teams in baseball that eschews that numeric driven voo doo and actually has baseball people making personnel decisions.
Click to expand...

Ya know what a successful GM does in baseball? He 'bats' right around .250 in the drraft, and basically like .400 in FA and whatnot. The book chronicles a change in thought, not one draft's incredible success. It's about a shift in philosophy, not about superheroes.

And yes that was the whole point that Beane was making: if someone like him(Theo) had the red sox payroll they would do much better. And voila.

Nowhere in the book does it say: this is 100% the best way to do things and will not fail! That's just silly of anything in sports to claim. What it was saying was: if you have a very small payroll and want to remain competitive, you have to find market inefficencies, players who are undervalued, etc. That's what they did and they have been enormously competitive considering.

And if you're talking about Tampa bay, they had 2 of the top 5 players in BB, and 2 in the top 20 in OPS, and formulated their young roster almost entirely through getting rid of overvalued players. That basically reads as a synopsis of moneyball for those who havent read it. Also this:

"Shortly after the season ended, Stuart Sternberg, who bought into the (tampa bay) ownership group in 2004, took over from Vince Naimoli as managing general partner, thus taking over executive control of the team. He immediately fired Chuck LaMar, the team’s general manager, and most of the front office. Sternberg decided not to have a de jure General Manager, calling the position “outdated.”"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top