From: zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Death To Live Arms Huckabay)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:24:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.19046
Distribution: na
Organization: Pity That Stupidity Is'nt Painful, Inc.

The 'Mayn Man' writes:
>Once again we have an example of the 
>fundamental SDCN confusion - Baseball is not statistics and statistics
>are not baseball.

That always got me into trouble in Stats 108.  The professor would be
lecturing on Spearman's Rho or something, and I'd throw a curveball
down the lecture hall, just to brush him back, and I'd *always* get
thrown out of class.

[Regarding evaluation of a player's defensive performance]

>I guess if you don't understand the fundamentals of how a player should
>field a position, and I guess if you are unable to see whether one is an
>athlete or not then I guess you have no recourse.

I'm afraid I don't understand why this matters.  I know more about
pitching mechanics and fielding mechanics than 99% of the people
reading this, but it usually doesn't help me much in determining who
is the better fielder.

I have rotten form at 3B, and I, in a word, suck at 3B.  I DREAM of
having the range of Carney Lansford and the arm of Alvaro Espinoza.

But I digress.

Sometimes, the guys who have lousy form in the field are the superior
defenders.  Looking good doing it is one thing - getting it done is
another.  I don't know how Mike LaValliere can hit as well as he does
- his swing is pathetic, and he appears to be extremely non-athletic.

Yet he hits.  And guys like Tracy Jones, who are probably superior
athletes to LaValliere, don't.  See also Braggs, Glenn.

Appearances can be deceiving.  I use mechanics and form to judge
whether a player can improve significantly or not, probably more than
any other stathead here on the net.  And most of the time, careful
statistical analysis is more accurate than I am in predicting trends
of player performance.

>One thing is for sure:
>if you don't watch any games you won't have a clue. 

I strongly disagree.  I know someone who has never seen any games, and
I'd say she knows a hell of a lot more about baseball than you ever
will.  You see, she's blind.  Has been since birth.  But has studied
baseball, through history, and yes, statistics, for the past seven
years, and understands how to use statistics as tools.  This is not
meant as a slam on you, specifically, Roger.  Kim knows more about
baseball than 90%+ of people ever will.

>Then again, some 
>people spend half of their lives watching games and they don't have a 
>clue neither.

Some of us spend half our lives watching, playing, and studying, and
we'll NEVER know HALF of what we want to know.  But at least our
horizons are open.  I try to carefully consider any new information I
get.  There's no point in closing your mind to information.
-- 
*   Gary Huckabay    * "Bobby Valentine?  Bobby F$#%ing Valentine?  S%^t,  *
*  "Lower imbecile   *  Gary, *I* could manage the Mariners better than    *
*   tolerance than   *  him, and I don't even bring the baggage of Tom     *
*   Sherri Nichols." *  House with me.   Arrrgh." - A. Nonymous Netster.   *
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball