Papelbon will win only 120 something games in his carreer. . . ?
I just moved 12/8 http://www.12eight.org/to the top of my RedSox blog list because the blogger, Andrew, is so engaging and willing to defend his p0sts, unlike so many of the sorry RedSox blogs, especially the commenters who seem to echo the bloggers point of view. I'm especially interested in the recent booing of Johnny Damon in his return to Fenway Park as a Yankee after Theo Epstein, the boy wonder of the Red Sox management, let him go. Fans call Theo a hero and Damon a traitor: what's wrong with this picture?
This comment is in response to a post about the projected career of a young
Red Sox pitcher, Jon Papelbon, who is a rookie, over his projected statistical career: sick!
I say, hats off to Andrew, because as they say in eBay, he's an A #1 blogger!
Zeke Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
This is so much BS. Actually it makes me puke. Too many variables to predict a baseball players future performance. I think J.P. has as much a chance to go into the HoF as a 3000 game winner than as the sceniario posited. It may be good fun, but it still makes me puke.
Can you give an example of someone who can be projected to be a Hall of Famer? It is so easy to predict failure, much more difficult to predict success. There is a reason for that.
And why does the sorry comments box on this blog run off of the page on the right so that the commenter cannot see the last few words he types on the right side of the box. Answer me that O all seeing omphalos.
Andrew Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Zeke - I have no real problem with you being an asshole, but I at least require that you be intelligent about it. First of all, I’m not the one making these projections, so your snarky closing loses a little oomph. Second, even if I was, I think it’s pretty clear from the above that these aren’t ‘predictions’ as much as they are potentials. Sickels’ pieces are meant to open discussion, to look at potential in a fleshed out way. Neither he nor I is saying anywhere that Papelbon is guaranteed to do any of the above, just that it’s a potential benchmark.
Anyway, go back to the post and read carefully, especially point b: “it’s pretty fun if you don’t take it seriously.” Then give your comment another shot; I’m sure you can be just as obnoxious next time, but with some evidence that you have a brain.
As for the comments, no clue. Never been able to fix it. If you want to offer a solution, be my guess. Otherwise, don’t let the door hit you.
Congrats for being the first person to use the term ‘omphalos’ on this blog, though.
Andrew Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Additionally, I personally think it’s much more unlikely that Papelbon wins 3,000 games than he does 126. But, you’re right: if he wins 3,000 he’s probably a first ballot HOFer. In 2218.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:01 am
When you put yourself out there as a blogger, with opinions such as yours, you should welcome all the attention you ask for. I’m sorry you can’t solve the comments box problem. I do sympathize, but I’d bet a professional could solve it for you. Does that “slave” your wounds?
I got that “O” word from a poem by Seamus Heany. Glad you like it. I’m just here to have fun, not to hurt anyone’s feelings. I love the redsox soap opera. Everyone has an opinion, and you know what opinions are like right? So let me have mine and disagree with you, all in good fun, or not, whatever.
But don’t you find that kind of projecting thing just a little bit offensive? I really do.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:07 am
No, I really don’t. And I’m actually pretty surprised at the vitriol. No one is suggesting that Papelbon’s in any way guaranteed to have a certain type of career; this whole excercise comes exactly as advertised, as a fun attempt to suggest a potential career path. And if you look beyond the raw ‘data’, you could see some interesting ideas that Sickels is putting forward; that Papelbon’s abilities are equally suited to starting and relief, that his K numbers will take a hit from his mL totals, that he has the kind of body and delivery that could sustain him through a 15 year career, etc. It’s not all about the results.
And the word is ’salve’. Slave has a fairly different meaning.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Let me ask you an additional question: when you’re evaluating younger players, are you saying that you never ever think about or consider how their career might unfold? Obviously no one can predict anything in stone, but most of the fun of having young exciting players on a team is thinking about where their skills might take them. If you can’t do that without, apparently, suffering gastronomic distress… well, I guess I feel sorry for you. I’m excited about Papelbon, just as I am about Jed Lowrie and Craig Hansen and Clay Buccholz. And I’m absolutely willing to entertain thoughts of Lowrie as a fantastic #2 hitter and SS, or Hansen as a lights-out closer. Doesn’t mean I’m banking on it; just means that the future has always been and will always be a fertile area for the imagination.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Actually, it is mathematically possible* for J.P to win his 3000th game in 2025.
Did I write “slave” instead of “salve” ? I guess I got my tongue wrapped around my eye tooth and can’t see what I’m saying!
Actually I’m a stats guy, but behind the curve: can you point me to a good site offering a primer on sabrmetrics?
I’ve been surfing Sox blogs tonight, and in MHO so many of them are sorry, especialy the commenters, kissing the bloggers ass — the power of the written word, I guess.
I especially disliked your essay about how you don’t want to read or hear anymore aboutout booing. I could not disagree more vhementaly. I think the more discusion, the better.
*If he starts and wins every game from now till then.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Zeke - dude, sorry you don’t like what I write… but as they say, them’s the breaks. Hope you find someone you like; if you don’t, start your own. You clearly have some strong opinions. Word to the wise, though: it really is possible to disagree with people yet not come off like an insulting prick. I do it all the time. It’s actually even more fun.
As for the primer on sabermetrics, depends on what you want. ‘Sabermetrics’ is really just a catch-all word denoting any number of statistical analyses that go beyond the ‘traditional’ numbers in baseball; OBP is still considered a sabermetric stat, though it’s a great deal more accepted than - for example - WARP3. Baseball Prospectus is as good a place to start as any; their free articles are fairly in-depth, and their glossary of statistical terms is about as deep as they come.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:30 am
I think we’re crossing in the mail. Sorry about the vitrol. It’s just my style. I guess it could stand some working on. I’m used to a free swinging give and take and to being attacked. Maybe I should develop a kinder, gentler me.
I hear what you’re saying. I guess I’m just pissed off in general, and you just happened to be there. Thanks for engaging. I’ll think about it.
I do not think about how young carreers may unflold except to hope that they reach their true potential and avoid injury. There really are too many variables.
I would have predicted that Nomar was headed for the HoF, but his career really went south and who could have predicted it?
Who could have predicted Youk’s success when he began in the minors?
I hear that the sox are asking James to crunch numbers to see if someone who strikes out a lot can overcome that problem over the course of a career. Guess who that project is aimed at: you guessed it, Wily Mo Pena.
So carry on, in good will, even if we don’t agree, I won’t call you names, but I don’t hold it against you.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:43 am
I guess I still don’t see what’s wrong with discussing potential production. Worst that happens is you’re wrong. That’s the glory of this game. We’ve got all these numbers, we’ve got data that shows how certain types of players have advanced historically, we know to some degree how minor league stats project, and how players age, and when optimal offensive years are… but these guys can still surprise us. Your perspective on it seems to be that given that uncertainty, no one should try; I think that’s pretty short-sighted, and at worst a complete impossibility. When David Ortiz comes to the plate with two men on, two runs down in the ninth, I like using my knowledge of his history to give myself hope for a three-run, game-winning jack. But according to you, what I’m doing there is offensive: I should assume that he’s just as likely to do something good as Alex Gonzalez would be.
All projections are are guesses based on the best available evidence. This isn’t just in baseball, it’s a fact of life. I am pretty certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, because it has every day and I have an understanding of the science behind it. More to the point, I can predict how a friend of mine would react if I suddenly stomped on their foot, and why their reaction would be different than if I did it to a complete stranger. I know these things because I have knowledge of the past, which can be used to make certain important assumptions about the future. Those assumptions are frequently right, often wrong, but there they are. Projecting ballplayers is no different. The above article is simply meant as a signpost to get us thinking about where this clearly talented young pitcher might go; it could just as easily have predicted that he blow out his arm in 2007 and never pitch again, and it would be equally worthy of discussion.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:54 am
“The above article is simply meant as a signpost to get us thinking about where this clearly talented young pitcher might go; it could just as easily have predicted that he blow out his arm in 2007 and never pitch again, and it would be equally worthy of discussion.”
No. See, in my opinion, it would not be worthy of discussion.
Have you ever heard that song by Lucinda Williams, that goes, “You took my joy, I want it back.” ?
Baseball is magic to me, unpredictable, despite all the stats, which are incredibly interesting, but the magic goes beyond stats. My negative response is emotional in nature, not rational. I hope that you can understand that and not judge me an idiot for clinging to my joy.
This comment is in response to a post about the projected career of a young
Red Sox pitcher, Jon Papelbon, who is a rookie, over his projected statistical career: sick!
I say, hats off to Andrew, because as they say in eBay, he's an A #1 blogger!
Zeke Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
This is so much BS. Actually it makes me puke. Too many variables to predict a baseball players future performance. I think J.P. has as much a chance to go into the HoF as a 3000 game winner than as the sceniario posited. It may be good fun, but it still makes me puke.
Can you give an example of someone who can be projected to be a Hall of Famer? It is so easy to predict failure, much more difficult to predict success. There is a reason for that.
And why does the sorry comments box on this blog run off of the page on the right so that the commenter cannot see the last few words he types on the right side of the box. Answer me that O all seeing omphalos.
Andrew Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Zeke - I have no real problem with you being an asshole, but I at least require that you be intelligent about it. First of all, I’m not the one making these projections, so your snarky closing loses a little oomph. Second, even if I was, I think it’s pretty clear from the above that these aren’t ‘predictions’ as much as they are potentials. Sickels’ pieces are meant to open discussion, to look at potential in a fleshed out way. Neither he nor I is saying anywhere that Papelbon is guaranteed to do any of the above, just that it’s a potential benchmark.
Anyway, go back to the post and read carefully, especially point b: “it’s pretty fun if you don’t take it seriously.” Then give your comment another shot; I’m sure you can be just as obnoxious next time, but with some evidence that you have a brain.
As for the comments, no clue. Never been able to fix it. If you want to offer a solution, be my guess. Otherwise, don’t let the door hit you.
Congrats for being the first person to use the term ‘omphalos’ on this blog, though.
Andrew Says: May 5th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Additionally, I personally think it’s much more unlikely that Papelbon wins 3,000 games than he does 126. But, you’re right: if he wins 3,000 he’s probably a first ballot HOFer. In 2218.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:01 am
When you put yourself out there as a blogger, with opinions such as yours, you should welcome all the attention you ask for. I’m sorry you can’t solve the comments box problem. I do sympathize, but I’d bet a professional could solve it for you. Does that “slave” your wounds?
I got that “O” word from a poem by Seamus Heany. Glad you like it. I’m just here to have fun, not to hurt anyone’s feelings. I love the redsox soap opera. Everyone has an opinion, and you know what opinions are like right? So let me have mine and disagree with you, all in good fun, or not, whatever.
But don’t you find that kind of projecting thing just a little bit offensive? I really do.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:07 am
No, I really don’t. And I’m actually pretty surprised at the vitriol. No one is suggesting that Papelbon’s in any way guaranteed to have a certain type of career; this whole excercise comes exactly as advertised, as a fun attempt to suggest a potential career path. And if you look beyond the raw ‘data’, you could see some interesting ideas that Sickels is putting forward; that Papelbon’s abilities are equally suited to starting and relief, that his K numbers will take a hit from his mL totals, that he has the kind of body and delivery that could sustain him through a 15 year career, etc. It’s not all about the results.
And the word is ’salve’. Slave has a fairly different meaning.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Let me ask you an additional question: when you’re evaluating younger players, are you saying that you never ever think about or consider how their career might unfold? Obviously no one can predict anything in stone, but most of the fun of having young exciting players on a team is thinking about where their skills might take them. If you can’t do that without, apparently, suffering gastronomic distress… well, I guess I feel sorry for you. I’m excited about Papelbon, just as I am about Jed Lowrie and Craig Hansen and Clay Buccholz. And I’m absolutely willing to entertain thoughts of Lowrie as a fantastic #2 hitter and SS, or Hansen as a lights-out closer. Doesn’t mean I’m banking on it; just means that the future has always been and will always be a fertile area for the imagination.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Actually, it is mathematically possible* for J.P to win his 3000th game in 2025.
Did I write “slave” instead of “salve” ? I guess I got my tongue wrapped around my eye tooth and can’t see what I’m saying!
Actually I’m a stats guy, but behind the curve: can you point me to a good site offering a primer on sabrmetrics?
I’ve been surfing Sox blogs tonight, and in MHO so many of them are sorry, especialy the commenters, kissing the bloggers ass — the power of the written word, I guess.
I especially disliked your essay about how you don’t want to read or hear anymore aboutout booing. I could not disagree more vhementaly. I think the more discusion, the better.
*If he starts and wins every game from now till then.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Zeke - dude, sorry you don’t like what I write… but as they say, them’s the breaks. Hope you find someone you like; if you don’t, start your own. You clearly have some strong opinions. Word to the wise, though: it really is possible to disagree with people yet not come off like an insulting prick. I do it all the time. It’s actually even more fun.
As for the primer on sabermetrics, depends on what you want. ‘Sabermetrics’ is really just a catch-all word denoting any number of statistical analyses that go beyond the ‘traditional’ numbers in baseball; OBP is still considered a sabermetric stat, though it’s a great deal more accepted than - for example - WARP3. Baseball Prospectus is as good a place to start as any; their free articles are fairly in-depth, and their glossary of statistical terms is about as deep as they come.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:30 am
I think we’re crossing in the mail. Sorry about the vitrol. It’s just my style. I guess it could stand some working on. I’m used to a free swinging give and take and to being attacked. Maybe I should develop a kinder, gentler me.
I hear what you’re saying. I guess I’m just pissed off in general, and you just happened to be there. Thanks for engaging. I’ll think about it.
I do not think about how young carreers may unflold except to hope that they reach their true potential and avoid injury. There really are too many variables.
I would have predicted that Nomar was headed for the HoF, but his career really went south and who could have predicted it?
Who could have predicted Youk’s success when he began in the minors?
I hear that the sox are asking James to crunch numbers to see if someone who strikes out a lot can overcome that problem over the course of a career. Guess who that project is aimed at: you guessed it, Wily Mo Pena.
So carry on, in good will, even if we don’t agree, I won’t call you names, but I don’t hold it against you.
Andrew Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:43 am
I guess I still don’t see what’s wrong with discussing potential production. Worst that happens is you’re wrong. That’s the glory of this game. We’ve got all these numbers, we’ve got data that shows how certain types of players have advanced historically, we know to some degree how minor league stats project, and how players age, and when optimal offensive years are… but these guys can still surprise us. Your perspective on it seems to be that given that uncertainty, no one should try; I think that’s pretty short-sighted, and at worst a complete impossibility. When David Ortiz comes to the plate with two men on, two runs down in the ninth, I like using my knowledge of his history to give myself hope for a three-run, game-winning jack. But according to you, what I’m doing there is offensive: I should assume that he’s just as likely to do something good as Alex Gonzalez would be.
All projections are are guesses based on the best available evidence. This isn’t just in baseball, it’s a fact of life. I am pretty certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, because it has every day and I have an understanding of the science behind it. More to the point, I can predict how a friend of mine would react if I suddenly stomped on their foot, and why their reaction would be different than if I did it to a complete stranger. I know these things because I have knowledge of the past, which can be used to make certain important assumptions about the future. Those assumptions are frequently right, often wrong, but there they are. Projecting ballplayers is no different. The above article is simply meant as a signpost to get us thinking about where this clearly talented young pitcher might go; it could just as easily have predicted that he blow out his arm in 2007 and never pitch again, and it would be equally worthy of discussion.
Zeke Says: May 6th, 2006 at 12:54 am
“The above article is simply meant as a signpost to get us thinking about where this clearly talented young pitcher might go; it could just as easily have predicted that he blow out his arm in 2007 and never pitch again, and it would be equally worthy of discussion.”
No. See, in my opinion, it would not be worthy of discussion.
Have you ever heard that song by Lucinda Williams, that goes, “You took my joy, I want it back.” ?
Baseball is magic to me, unpredictable, despite all the stats, which are incredibly interesting, but the magic goes beyond stats. My negative response is emotional in nature, not rational. I hope that you can understand that and not judge me an idiot for clinging to my joy.
posted by Zeke Hunkaburning at 2:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home