Those Braves

[lethalweapon3]

So, I went to the American Statistical Association convention and a Braves game broke out... (/rimshot)

~lw3

[Guest]

If you found that comment (about your being all business) an insult, you are exquisitely sensitive. It's true, as you admitted (as I remember?) Stop getting your feelings hurt so easily. Regardless, you had some other avatar that I recognized at that time, and I did remember you, the humorless, the exquisitely sensitive, the argumentative, the insulting. Odd how insulting people are exquisitely sensitive, eh? We used to say "can dish it out but can't take it". Now that is a defense mechanism.

I truly confused you with the other poster this time, and you pointed it out yourself. You went with that until you changed your ,mind and then wanted to say I had remembered you, thought it was you all along, and had made it personal. Again, it can't be both. Your arguments as usual are weak and contradictory, as arguments with agendas tend to be. Sure, I directly quoted you with AHawk89's posts, but that's only because I thought it was him all along, not you all along. Note I also directly quoted him to himself. You make zero sense to any objective reader. The difference, of course, is that objective readers aren't blinded by hatred.

Its clear you 1) recognized/remembered me and also 2) took most of AHawks89's posts to be mine. These aren't two mutually exclusive options, they can occur at the same time (and do). Remembering has nothing to do with misquoting. Also, your previous quote wasn't about being all business but (as I said) about me having no sense of humor:

Been reading this board a long time. He doesn't do humor, but he'll sure correct the heck out of you if you misinterpret the CBA rules.

http://www.hawksquawk.net/community/index.php/topic/358285-dont-worry-asg-is-making-bank/page__view__findpost__p__505548

That is one misquote, so 0 for 1. Is there any more within the past few hours?

Don't cry about insults if you're going to be insulting yourself. You started off by saying "I hate it when people start using statistics" with respect to baseball. You made absolute, inflexible claims such as "statistics don't tell the game of baseball" without backing them up with any evidence/logic/reasoning. You called my arguments "ridiculous" in your first response to me without giving any objective reason why. You've since followed up with sarcasm and calling my arguments "asinine".

Here, you're clearly confusing me for AHawks89 while also quoting me. I did in fact call your arguments asinine. Your other two quotes that you attribute to me are from AHawks89, so you're batting 1 for 4 so far.

But Hawksfanatic doesn't agree. He thinks Fredi is "doing a pretty good job" and when given a list of his egregious errors, he only concedes that the bullpen management is terrible (NB: bullpen management is far and away the single most important factor in managing baseball, particularly in the NL). He doesn't seem to think batting AGon 2nd is a big deal at all.

Oh, a new quote directly from me. Funny, I said nothing about Fredi outside of passively saying he doesn't have an optimal lineup. That is 1 for 5. We now have 5 datum, so one might say you had a batting average (mean) of .200. Sounds like a statistic right now. But what if I assumed that you had a certain distribution of being able to quote correctly or not. This could be an infinite population of quotes or finite, really it doesn't matter. But if we take this into context, we can then say the data I have collected in this post gives us an estimator for the mean distribution. Alright, that tells us that the mean is a parameter and we are estimating it. Cool! But now what are we left with?

[CBAreject]

Its clear you 1) recognized/remembered me and also 2) took most of AHawks89's posts to be mine. These aren't two mutually exclusive options, they can occur at the same time (and do). Remembering has nothing to do with misquoting.

OMG who cares anyway? Why is this so important to you. I was clearly confused, mistaken about who was who. Why would I have incentive to expend so much energy arguing this point with you anyway? What do I stand to gain? I mean why would I really care about admitting if I did know it was you or not? Unlike you, I don't get my kicks out of disagreeing with a particular poster I have a vendetta against. But you can't reason that out. You're so hell bent on proving me wrong on something, anything, that you'll spend hours posting, searching to that end. There are so many hawksfans, hawkfanatics, Atlhawks, o/w hawk variations, that I didn't connect the name with the same guy who used to have the Billy Knight avatar and would only enter a thread to disagree with me some years ago. When you mentioned "history", I said to myself "oh brother, it's this guy. How could I forget him?" The fact that I did recognize you several months ago with that ACC avatar or whatever it was does not mean I would by your easily confused name now (it's not like a Walter or Dolfan, or Lascar or something), especially when I'd assigned Atlhawks personality to that Josh Smith avatar.

Notice again that you said casually "I actually agree with most stuff you said" but you never entered the thread until you could disagree. Why do you care so much about me...so much that you can't let some ridiculous grudge die for...what, 5 years? I mean, as far as you're concerned, I'm a robot who makes posts on a hawks blog. Why have a vendetta against an online forum poster? You're sick. This is a thoroughly sick obsession you have.

Also, your previous quote wasn't about being all business but (as I said) about me having no sense of humor:

Being all business is a different way of saying "no sense of humor". But you're so blinded by your hatred that all you could do is dig up the quote and say "nuh uh! it's not verbatim! I win". What a child you are. You're blocked buddy. I should've done that long ago.

Edited July 16, 2011 by CBAreject

[Guest]

Notice again that you said casually "I actually agree with most stuff you said" but you never entered the thread until you could disagree. Why do you care so much about me...so much that you can't let some ridiculous grudge die for...what, 5 years? I mean, as far as you're concerned, I'm a robot who makes posts on a hawks blog. Why have a vendetta against an online forum poster? You're sick. This is a thoroughly sick obsession you have.

Yes, I asked a question about where your idea of hitting the best hitter #2 came from where you called everyone a moron for not knowing that it should obviously be where you bat the #2. ("For the clueless out there, you want your highest OBP 1st and your best overall hitter 2nd (unless said hitter is a masher, in which case he hits 4th)"...not verbatim but you'll probably still be upset that I misinterpreted you). You IMMEDIATELY went off on a tangent of calling me an imbecile (Dunning Kruger Effect? I'm beginning to think you know about it because you were diagnosed with it). Yeah, I'm the one who is sick and always comes in to disagree and insult you...

Being all business is a different way of saying "no sense of humor". But you're so blinded by your hatred that all you could do is dig up the quote and say "nuh uh! it's not verbatim! I win". What a child you are. You're blocked buddy. I should've done that long ago.

This coming from the moron who tried to correct me for calling a mean a statistic instead of a parameter. Yet you try to create a puffed up fake definition of why a mean is a parameter (finite population my *ss, you can have an infinite population while still maintaining that a mean does not establish a parameter if you have no model. In its simplest form, a mean is simply a descriptive statistic and without an assumed distribution then the mean is not be a parameter). This typically will happen when someone comes from a field/discipline that only casually uses statistics which are only used it to fit your specific purpose. I'm guessing yours has something to do with health (from the example of there being a height distribution), which usually leads to someone who wants to prove that 25 clinical trials is enough to approximate the central limit theorem and therefore inference can be established! Typically, they always assume distributions to experiments (mostly normal because, well its the easiest!) and carry out their studies. Maybe they use fancy bayesian techniques to establish distributions of which the parameter of a distribution you have assumed can be estimated. Its all fine and dandy, within that specific niche of statistics that the medical field uses they aren't bad (if you can swallow the bullsh*t about 25 being a good approximation to infinity) but the big problem is just because you know that one area doesn't imply you know statistics. It usually blinds you to actually thinking about assumptions that are built into your everyday life when you use statistics and gives you a puffed up imagination of how knowledgeable you are.

Even though you say you block me, your curiosity will still lead you to unblock and view this post. You'll read it, get angered and punch a wall or write a nasty mean entry in your journal or something. You'll bury your head in the sand and would rather seem stoic in not responding. I guess its better to take the "high route" and act like you are right. Ignorance is bliss.

[AHawks89]

I just think it's hilarious that SportsSouth and Braves players are saying the complete opposite of what CBAreject is saying. :sarcastichand:

[Guest]

I just think it's hilarious that SportsSouth and Braves players are saying the complete opposite of what CBAreject is saying. :sarcastichand:

He's much more content being right in his own mind than actually being right. The odd thing is that he has a lot of insightful things to say, he just doesn't say it without insulting people. He has some odd vendetta against the "GTFO arguments", even though those are not that prevalent on this board and easy to ignore. This board is easily one of the most intelligent out there, which is a small reason why I enjoy posting so much. There is a lot to learn from the posters and you don't always have to make a reply of "yeah totally man!" after all the good posts (I know I don't, maybe that's why it appears I always disagree).

But if he does respond to you, get ready for some sort of a "yeah well those sportscasters are morons who don't know a lick about stats anyway!" I get the feeling he is about to crawl into his shell again just like after his tanking tantrum. Since you haven't been on the board long enough, that hopefully explains why he has an interest in Thomas the Tank Engine.

[CBAreject]

I just think it's hilarious that SportsSouth and Braves players are saying the complete opposite of what CBAreject is saying. :sarcastichand:

1) What are "Braves players" saying? Give me quotes, please.

2) Regardless of what they're saying, your argument here is something like "hey baseball players disagree with your statistically-minded analysis of baseball. they play lots of baseball, so they must know better than you about statistical analysis of baseball, since you haven't played as much baseball. since they disagree with you, you must be wrong and they must be right"

I hope you can see the fallacy in your logic. You likely won't, but at least I tried.

[AHawks89]

1) What are "Braves players" saying? Give me quotes, please.

2) Regardless of what they're saying, your argument here is something like "hey baseball players disagree with your statistically-minded analysis of baseball. they play lots of baseball, so they must know better than you about statistical analysis of baseball, since you haven't played as much baseball. since they disagree with you, you must be wrong and they must be right"

I hope you can see the fallacy in your logic. You likely won't, but at least I tried.

Quotes? Look at AJC.com or watch SportsSouth post game

What I was trying to tell you is stats don't determine the Braves season ahead of them. You were pretty much arguing that the stats of each player will determine the season ahead of us. There is a lot of stuff that don't show up on the box score. Stats don't show the players making better adjustments. You can look at the player making adjustments during the game, and see he's starting to figure out his mistakes. Dan Uggla was all about timing, you could see during the game that his timing is much better. Does that mean he'll get on base or get a base hit? No, but you can tell he's seeing the ball better; which you will start seeing 'improvement in stats'. Hustling down the line, making a great catch, etc. Anything the can bring momentum to a player and get his streak going. And I also said stats don't determine the game it's self. You can believe that all you want. I also said when the team is healthy we will start producing more runs & hits. Prado is back, and look what's been going on since the All Star break. When we get Chipper back, we'll be hitting even better.

Well, well, well... :kingchris:

Edited July 19, 2011 by AHawks89

[AHawks89]

Well, here is a very good read about what I'm talking about.

Here you go: Link.

Braves Coaching Staff: As If Stats Don't Matter

by gondeee on Jul 19, 2011 11:22 AM EDT

It's hard to argue with a manager who has guided his team to the second best record in the National League, and what seems to be a commanding Wild Card lead... but this is the blogosphere, we will argue at a wall if we don't like how it's just standing there all flat and motionless. So then many people will have an argument with how Fredi Gonzalez views his team, or more specifically, his leadoff hitter:

As he and his coaches gathered in the clubhouse long before the start of Monday's series opener against the Rockies at Coors Field, Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez asked who had the highest on-base percentage among Jordan Schafer, Nate McLouth and Jason Heyward.

When his coaches quickly responded, "Schafer," Gonzalez chuckled because he had held the same belief before he opted to look at the stats on this humid afternoon in Denver. This proved to be a case where the numbers didn't match what these coaches felt they had seen over the past couple months.

"Their [numbers are] all about the same," Gonzalez said. "But you feel like Schafer is doing so much more."

Many of you probably just screamed at the computer screen. That's a typical response. Before we go any further, here are some stats:

Player

Season OBP

OBP batting 1st

OBP batting 2nd

Jordan Schafer

.295

.295

-

Jason Heyward

.319

-

.324

Nate McLouth

.347

-

.307

Alex Gonzalez

.259

-

.235

Martin Prado .320 .321 .328

Dan Uggla .263 - .302

The real problem is that the Braves just don't have a lead off hitter. Schafer has the tools to be one, but has never really shown the consistent production to bat at the top of the lineup. But because he has the tools (read: speed) somehow seeing is believing when it comes to the Braves coaching staff. As Fredi put it:

"You feel like [schafer] will do something," Gonzalez said. "I don't know if it's that stolen-base threat or what."

Can we officially state that Fredi Gonzalez manages by "feel." I get that one guy on the coaching staff is managing by feel, I get that the coaches and the manager are on the players' side, but someone in that clubhouse has got to be a foil to the "feel" and point out that while he's good at scoring runs once he's on base, Schafer's simply not on base enough to score enough runs to justify being a top of the lineup hitter.

It has defied all statistical convention that the Braves have gone 31-and-16 since Jordan Schafer was recalled and placed in the leadoff spot, having only been 26-23 before then. Are our stats deceiving us? Should we be feeling more?

To further infuriate the sabermatricians among us, the horrible on-base combo of Schafer leading off and Alex Gonzalez batting second has produced a record of 11 wins to only 3 losses. It's as if the rest of the team understands that they will have to do the bulk of the heaving lifting in those games.

So maybe stats don't matter. Maybe the feel of the game trump the facts on paper. The Braves coaches are all experienced baseball people who have been around the game for a long time. Maybe the mental psyche of the baseball player needs to see a speedy leadoff type guy in the leadoff spot, and so when Jordan's batting first everyone else feels better about going to the plate.

This has GOT to be one of the strange unmeasurable quirks of baseball. The Braves have been winning more, while getting on base less! Seriously:

Month

W-L Record

Team OBP

March/April

13-15

.298

May

17-11

.326

June

17-9

.290

July

10-4

.315

So it must be pitching, right? Wrong. Team ERA from March to July has gone from 3.11 to 2.91 to 3.24 to 3.75. So it's not immediately clear that the pitching has gotten drastically better and offset the lack of on-base percentage.

Truly strange. Until these numbers start to be proven in the results, the Braves stat-heads will continue to bang their heads against the wall. Fredi Gonzalez will continue to bat Jordan Schafer in the leadoff spot, and perhaps the Braves will continue to win in spite of what the game on paper says. Hopefully someone in the front office is looking at the stats and plotting a move that will put the universe back in order, because no one in the dugout is. At some point this Jordan Schafer leadoff honeymoon will end.

Edited July 19, 2011 by AHawks89

[CBAreject]

You were pretty much arguing that the stats of each player will determine the season ahead of us.

I never said anything remotely similar to that. What would be the point of saying such a thing? How could you possibly condense everything I wrote to that simplistic, facile, and untrue maxim? What I said in several different ways was that Fredi wasn't using statistics to optimize line-ups and bullpen usage. That is difficult to argue with rationally. Here's a hint: you can't do so by saying "nuh-uh, stats don't mean nuttin".

There is a lot of stuff that don't show up on the box score.

I agree, but there's also a lot more that does show up in the box score. Jordan Schafer's .290 OBP should never be in the lead-off spot. The Braves are winning in spite of his paltry OBP, not because of it. Putting your lowest OBP players in the top 2 spots (which Fredi did until Prado came back) maximizes plate appearances for players who make outs most frequently.

Stats don't show the players making better adjustments.

Yes, they do, unless you mean adjustments that don't result in hitting better. If that's what you mean, then who cares if they adjust?

You can look at the player making adjustments during the game, and see he's starting to figure out his mistakes.

Yes, as good players do, but those adjustments should result in improved OBP/SLG/OPS, or else they're completely unimportant.

Dan Uggla was all about timing, you could see during the game that his timing is much better. Does that mean he'll get on base or get a base hit? No, but you can tell he's seeing the ball better; which you will start seeing 'improvement in stats'.

First, I thought stats didn't matter. Why should you care if his stats improve? Second, there's nobody who didn't think Uggla would improve from his late June numbers. He's just not a .170 hitter. Third, I've never argued Uggla shouldn't be playing or even hitting in the middle of the order. You seem to think that I believe that everyone's current statistics will persist, or that "their statistics will determine the season ahead of them". That's absurd. Uggla has the ability to perform better than his first half stats, and based on the past 5 years of stats, we can predict that he will do better in the second half. Jordan Schafer has no such track record, so we can't expect him to be anything other than what he has demonstrated for the last 4 years at every level (AA, AAA, MLB)...a player who can't get on base enough to merit a starting spot on a ML roster.

Hustling down the line, making a great catch, etc.

Hustling down the line is important, because everyone can and should do it, but it's a nominal effect. Some of it will result in extra infield hits, which should be reflected in OBP/SLG/OPS. Some of it will result in reaches on errors, which will translate into the occasional unearned run (not more than a few per year per team, though, which will likely only translate into 1 win or less).

Anything the can bring momentum to a player and get his streak going.

Streaks will be reflected in the overall statistics.

And I also said stats don't determine the game it's self. You can believe that all you want.

When did I say anything remotely similar to that? The game is determined by which team scores the most runs. A team can win a particular game by playing sub-optimally (such as batting Schafer leadoff and AGon 2nd). However, over the course of 162 games, suboptimal strategies should result in fewer wins than optimal strategies. It is impossible to say which games it costs you because of too many variables. However, it is clear that the teams that score the most runs and give up the fewest runs tend to win the most games.

I also said when the team is healthy we will start producing more runs & hits.

Who in their right mind would disagree with that? This entire discussion was about optimizing what we have, not bemoaning the fact we don't have more. Have you been reading?

[CBAreject]

Well, here is a very good read about what I'm talking about.

Here you go: Link.

First off, this is a blog post by someone who has no more credibility than I do. Second, the fact that Fredi Gonzalez "manages by feel", as this blogger says, doesn't in any way contradict what I've been saying all along. He doesn't look at statistics. That's not a wise move, in general. The fact he and his staff didn't know Schafer had the worst OBP of those guys mentioned is indefensible. His team is awfully good, and that team will win the majority of its games no matter which lineup he runs out there. To put it in perspective, think of it this way. An average manager may take the Braves to 95 wins, for instance. An awful manager may take them to 93, and a stellar manager may take them to 97. The difference in managing just isn't that profound (as it is in nba/nfl)...unless it results in an injury to Kimbrel/Venters, in which case we're probably looking at another 2 wins off the final record and a heckuva lot worse chance in the playoffs.

Furthermore, this blogger fails to discuss the most obvious reason for our success the last 2 months, which is that Brian McCann and Freddie Freeman, and to a lesser degree, Dan Uggla, got red hot. Just imagine if they'd had players in front of them who get on base to drive in.

[AHawks89]

I've deleted a lot of my responses back to you. After re-reading my post, I realized how I was being immature. So, I'm just not going to respond back. You simply don't realize what I'm trying to say, nor/or do you really want to. You already have it in your head, that you're "right", when you're simply not. This isn't fantasy baseball. You fail to realize the points I'm making about how you think of this team. Why don't you reread what I said a few times, and maybe, just maybe it will make some sense to you. You said stats tell the whole game of baseball, while I said they don't. Think what ya want.

Edited July 20, 2011 by AHawks89

[AHF]

I've deleted a lot of my responses back to you. After re-reading my post, I realized how I was being immature. So, I'm just not going to respond back. You simply don't realize what I'm trying to say, nor/or do you really want to. You already have it in your head, that you're "right", when you're simply not. This isn't fantasy baseball. You fail to realize the points I'm making about how you think of this team. Why don't you reread what I said a few times, and maybe, just maybe it will make some sense to you.

Deleted the taunting remark

I was just posting a warning on this, because both parties are being immature on this thread.

The snide comments are unnecessary

Stuff like:

I just think it's hilarious that SportsSouth and Braves players are saying the complete opposite of what CBAreject is saying. :sarcastichand:

I hope you can see the fallacy in your logic. You likely won't, but at least I tried.

Here's a hint: you can't do so by saying "nuh-uh, stats don't mean nuttin".

Go manage your fantasy team. :sarcastichand:

just makes both of you look bad and takes away from what should be a very interesting topic in discussing Gonzalez's management of the team.

Knock off (a) the snide comments and (b) the deliberate distortions of the other's arguments (i.e., reducing the other's argument to something that is obviously untrue and doesn't really represent what they have been saying).

I don't want to have to issue official warnings but will if this continues.

Just stick to the actual topic and avoid characterizing the other poster and things will go smoothly. It is the difference between saying:

"The Braves' record speaks for itself - Fredi is doing a great job. No, the Braves are winning in spite of Gonzalez since he is using his worst hitter in the spot with most ABs and shows he isn't even aware of how often his players are generating outs."

and

"You are a fantasy geek who doesn't really know baseball. You are an ignoramus who won't acknowledge the actual numbers that everyone else in baseball realizes are significant."

The latter is going after the person. The former is arguing the topic.

Stick to arguing the topic.

Edited July 20, 2011 by AHF

[AHawks89]

Haha!! :pleasantry: :stirthepot: I think things were fine, until...yeah.

On that case, I will say what I originally said:

Braves pitching is out standing. Who would had ever thought that Kimbrel and Venters would be the best closers in the game. Actually, I knew they would be sick, but this sick?! Imagine if we still had Wagner here to give those young guns some rest. I love our pitching rotation and bullpen, the best in the MLB? I'd say so.

The hitting will come around, and when it does, I'd say we have the best shot at winning the World Series. That's the only negative thing I can say about this team. When we get everyone healthy, I think our hitting will click within the first week. I'm glad Jordan is getting some playing time & starting to get a feel what it's like to play in the MLB. I love his defense, and he has a great arm. We will have a good rotation for whomever needs rest. If Chipper needs rest, we can move Prado to 3rd & put Nate in LF. I'm pretty confident in this team this year. This is the team right here folks.

Freddi has not done a bad job at all at coaching, at least in my opinion. I like that we are attempting to steal bases more often than the years before.

Go Braves!

Let's hope the Braves remain one of the hottest teams!

Edited July 20, 2011 by AHawks89

[CBAreject]

You simply don't realize what I'm trying to say, nor/or do you really want to.

I have carefully and deliberately considered your posts, line by line. How could you conclude that I fail to understand what you're saying? Also, please think about this question for a minute: why would a poster who didn't "really want to" understand your position take such great pains to go line by line answering your posts? That simply doesn't make sense. A poster who didn't want to understand you would fail to address any of your points and respond with emoticons pointing and laughing, for example.

You already have it in your head, that you're "right", when you're simply not.

The same could be said about almost anyone, including you, but determining who is right is a lot more complicated than saying "you're simply not". If you believe statistics don't matter, then you should give evidence why that is true. To this point, you've simply stated it as if it is self-evident, e.g., "stats don't tell the game of baseball". That doesn't stand in place of an adequately supported argument, and most people will not change a long-held belief simply because they were contradicted. If I find your reasons compelling, I am inclined to change what I believe. I once over-valued batting average as a statistic, as did most baseball fans in the early 90's. I found superior arguments that batting average is not nearly as important as OBP or SLG. I changed what I believed based on those arguments. I now believe that OBP and SLG are highly influenced by luck and park effects, so other measures, such as batting average on balls in play, should be considered beyond these.

If you want to prove I'm wrong, a good place to start would be to show that some teams score more runs than their statistics would suggest. I know this to be false, however. In baseball, teams tend to score almost exactly as many runs as their primary statistics (OBP, SLG, SB/CS) suggest they will. Bill James' runs created formula predicts the number of runs that a team will score very well based on the primary stats, and there aren't teams who consistently score more often than their statistics suggest they will. If stats didn't tell the game of baseball, as you say, then some teams should consistently be able to outperform their predictors.

This isn't fantasy baseball.

If it were fantasy baseball, I'd care about maximizing glamour stats like saves and stolen base totals and other things that don't really impact whether the team wins. I care about winning, and optimizing line-ups and managing bullpens appropriately translates into wins.

You fail to realize the points I'm making about how you think of this team.

No, you've been very clear in telling me what I think about the Braves. The problem is that you're wrong about what I think. I never said "stats will determine the rest of the season". I understand what you're telling me I think, but I don't think those things. You're putting those words in my mouth.

Why don't you reread what I said a few times, and maybe, just maybe it will make some sense to you.

Your posts are generally short, and as such, they are easy to comprehend. I don't think I've misunderstood you. If you think I've misconstrued your arguments, please tell me how. There should be evidence in my replies as such. If you don't find evidence I've misunderstood, then you should question your hypothesis that I've misunderstood in the first place.

You said stats tell the whole game of baseball, while I said they don't. Think what ya want.

You said "stats don't tell the game of baseball", and I replied "yes, they do". Clearly, there are some things that can't be measured in baseball, but again, there is no sport which may be as thoroughly understood strictly by a review of statistics. The won-lost records of teams are consistently related to their run differential with very little variance in the final won-lost record. In football, a team may outperform its point-differential because they play more carefully or craftily in close games. Teams may score more in football than their yardage statistics suggest because they are better at scoring TD's in the red zone due to veteran play or good coaching. However, as I've mentioned in baseball, teams tend to score right about what their "yardage" (OBP/SLG) suggests they will.

Those kind of team effects which prevail in football simply don't exist to the same degree in baseball. The reason is that football is a team game with lots more highly important variables that transcend individual stats. Baseball is a series of one-on-one matchups between pitcher and batter. There are team elements that are difficult to measure (such as hustling in rare cases, situational hitting, certain baserunning scenarios, and some defensive plays) which will, as such, go beyond raw statistics. However, those elements are nominal effects compared to the things that can be measured, such as avoiding outs, generating extra-base hits, and getting opposing batters out. Those measurables will tend to dominate in baseball because the game is much more dependent on individual matchups (pitcher vs batter) than a game like football.

Edited July 20, 2011 by CBAreject

[Eddielives]

Wow. Braves win on a terrible call. From some angles, it does look like he might have missed the tag but the angle the ump had was very clear. I think that call will overshadow the fact that the Brave's offense has trended back to atrocious. I swear, Alex Gonzales and Nate Mclouth(who needs to yell at himself more than umps for being a joke of a hitter) need to be benched or traded, period! These guys are are barely better than a average pitchers hitting ability. Now McCann is out however David Ross is a pretty dang good backup. Barring a trade, we could see the Braves slip out of the wild card lead pretty soon.

[lethalweapon3]

May Jerry Meals never work a home plate again.

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

(courtesy SBNation)

That home plate call was the very best thing that could have happened. Because the whole game, Jerry was calling strikes and punching out people for taking pitches barely above their shoelaces, and without that 19th inning it would have been ALL swept under the rug. It was so bad, players were turning to him after low pitches as if to say, "what, you're not gonna call that too?" He was just atrocious last night. And 12 hours later, he is STILL trending on Twitter.

~lw3

[CBAreject]

Barring a trade, we could see the Braves slip out of the wild card lead pretty soon.

The Braves would be overcome by which team? Arizona? They are 4 games back, last I saw. We actually don't give up a huge amount of offense by replacing McCann with Ross. There is no player that we could trade for that would prevent a 4-game swing. Trading for a superstar to replace a weak-link, such as Schafer, would project to a 1.5-2 win difference over the rest of the season. If we trade for less than a superstar (Bourne, e.g.), the results will be less appreciable. If Arizona (or anybody) is to overtake us it will be because our pitching got a lot worse, and I don't think any of the bats that are available can overcome that.

[lethalweapon3]

Bravos can probably scratch Carlos from their wish lists, looks like he's on his way to Frisco.

~lw3