|
Post by gk on Mar 11, 2010 14:41:21 GMT -6
Here's a baseball question: Simmons keeps insisting RBIs mean something. SABR dudes hate it, from what I can tell. Does he have a beef? Do they mean anything? I can see where the stats guys are coming from. If you're a good hitter, you'll drive in runs. If you're a bad hitter, you won't. Just a heads up: Albert Pujols has never led the league in RBI. And he's probably the best non-roided (presumably) hitter ever.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Mar 12, 2010 15:09:05 GMT -6
Sure, Simmons may write ridiculous comparisons, but if you think there's another writer out there who could come up with 20 levels of broke, well then...you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Apr 2, 2010 17:05:42 GMT -6
Simmons on baseball: "THERE ARE TOO MANY COMPLICATED STATS! YOU'RE RUINING BASEBALL!!! OPS??? HOW THE HELL CAN I CALCULATE THAT?!!! I DIDN'T GO TO MIT!!!!" Simmons on basketball: "I want to know Shane Battier's effective field goal percentage 15 ft away from the basket while driving to his left in Sunday afternoon games." No. Simmons has no beef. RBI means absolutely nothing as far as evaluating talent. Yes, the player with the most RBI is probably better than the player with the least RBI. RBI are extremely team/lineup dependent. His recent crusade against "The Stat Geeks" is ridiculous to the point that I wish "Ken Tremendous" would retire from writing Parks and Rec so he could FireJoeMorgan his a$$. They're ruining the game? Really? Not the insane competitive imbalance perpetuated by Boston and New York? Not the gawd-awful Fox treatment of the broadcasts? Not steroids? The Stat Geeks are the ones ruining baseball? Simmons embraces SABR. sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100402
|
|
|
Post by gk on Apr 3, 2010 11:51:25 GMT -6
Like he said, 10 years too late, but I won't complain. If we can get things like BABIP mentioned regularly on ESPN baseball broadcasts that would be incredible. And it'll take mainstreamers like Simmons to make that happen.
|
|