Reconciliation w/ Sandberg expected this week

[USCChiFan]

Metrics should never be used as the main factor in looking at a player's production and worth. They have too many variables, are flawed and don't tell you everything about the player. They can be a useful tool, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

This post couldn't be any more true.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Why not?

Soriano has never wronged my family.




Metrics and stats can have "bias" or leans. If one metric doesn't weight something as much as the other and a player is good/bad at that one thing that's a bias within the metric and will effect the outcome of the data. A true number is a number is a number. 2 is 2 by itself. The weight I give that (2) based on how important I think it is in relation to the metric I am making is a bias. It doesn't have to be a bias against one player, it can be a bias against a certain baseline number to begin with.

For someone who drones on about metrics so much you have virtually no grasp of them or understanding of them at all in any real meaningful sense.

I do not believe for a minute that if Soriano was a gold glover that you'd think he was good. You have this image of him in your mind and you obviously can't change that. Yes, metrics have bias, but not in the emotional way people do. That's what I was getting at.

Save for the exceptions of Geraldo Parra and Brett Gardner.

Also DRS>UZR

Even DRS says the same thing that UZR is saying.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Metrics should never be used as the main factor in looking at a player's production and worth. They have too many variables, are flawed and don't tell you everything about the player. They can be a useful tool, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

So what should the main factor be?

 

[Uman85]

So what should the main factor be?

There shouldn't be just one main factor. You need to look at everything collectively to get the best possible perspective of what the player could bring to your team.

 

[FirstTimer]

Metrics should never be used as the main factor in looking at a player's production and worth. They have too many variables, are flawed and don't tell you everything about the player. They can be a useful tool, but they're not the be-all, end-all.

Don't tell that to poods or CO.

These are the same idiots that seemingly only care about range factor/UZR, wOBA, and WAR.

Two of those are the biggest crock of shit metrics out there.

I do not believe for a minute that if Soriano was a gold glover that you'd think he was good.

That's idiotic.

If Soriano had GG's I wouldn't be here having this conversation or the conversation could be "Soriano is a good fielder but not THAT good".

Then again if grandma had nuts she'd be grandpa. It's impossible to judge what my opinion of Soriano would be as a GG'er because we haven't seen anything near that quality of play to evaluate from him at that standard.

You act as though it's a surprise Soriano is a bad fielder.

You have this image of him in your mind and you obviously can't change that.

Gee I wonder why?!

Yes, metrics have bias, but not in the emotional way people do.

People's emotions/feelings/bias can and do have a direct impact on the way the numbers and base lines are weighted in the metrics. If someone thinks errors are a crock or doesn't realyl care for the stat they will weight them lower. That's inserting bias into the metric by factoring the number.

For god sakes you're as dense as a post.

Even DRS says the same thing that UZR is saying.

And DRS is shit...I have ye to see any defensive metric that I would put ANY weight in or form any sort of conclusion or argument around.

 

[daddies3angels]

Sori bad def OF....Sandberg should get job

 

[Icculus]

If Sandberg becomes the Cubs' manager, you know Theo won't bring Dave Martinez into the organization.