Negativity

[howieramone2]

Maybe we could keep the negativity to current Twins events instead of rehashing the last four years. I'd like to think that would keep things more balanced ... starting with how they perform tomorrow.

I'm far from a Hawkeye fan, but I think Coach McCaffery is another one of the great coaches

in the B1G. Couldn't help but rooting for them as a sleeper the past 2 years. Fun team to watch!

 

 

Go Gophers!

[bird]

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/

 

Here you go

Hahahaha

 

 

Now THAT's funny! Thanks for the revelation.

[old nurse]

 

Won what, though? I'm having a hard time understanding what the contest is, and what the prize might be. Ego-boosting? There's gotta be a better way.

What is lost is different perspectives. For the most part it is not what is said, it is how it is said. There are far to many comments that dismiss the poster, not break down the comment. Somebody replies in kind and the thread goes down the tubes. Post to the comment, not who made it.

[Craig Arko]

 

What is lost is different perspectives. For the most part it is not what is said, it is how it is said. There are far to many comments that dismiss the poster, not break down the comment. Somebody replies in kind and the thread goes down the tubes. Post to the comment, not who made it.

 

I certainly see your point. Maybe they'll get tired and take a break, and then a meaningful conversation might happen again. OK, maybe next year.

 

Until then; hey! There's water on Mars. That's legitimate good news.

[nicksaviking]

Just playing armchair psychologist here, but I'm guessing the "positive" posts end up ruffling feathers mostly when they appear to the opponents to be grounded in blind faith.  This seems to be what happens in ugly political or religious kerfuffles anyhow. 

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

 

 

[Craig Arko]

 

Just playing armchair psychologist here, but I'm guessing the "positive" posts end up ruffling feathers mostly when they appear to the opponents to be grounded in blind faith.  This seems to be what happens in ugly political or religious kerfuffles anyhow. 

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Littlewood%27s_law

 

[old nurse]

 

Just playing armchair psychologist here, but I'm guessing the "positive" posts end up ruffling feathers mostly when they appear to the opponents to be grounded in blind faith.  This seems to be what happens in ugly political or religious kerfuffles anyhow. 

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

Defensive metrics

They have math..

I guess there is a science

There is a debate on validity

 

People used to say BABIP was  matter of the pitcher's luck. Over the winter it became a measure of how good the defense is

 

Math and science in baseball

[jimmer]

 

 

 

People used to say BABIP was  matter of the pitcher's luck. Over the winter it became a measure of how good the defense is

 

 

Do you want to elaborate on this supposed flip flop?

 

'BABIP is likely even more important when evaluating pitchers because they have almost no control over what happens to a ball once it is put in play. A pitcher can control their strikeouts, walks, and home runs, and through those, the number of balls they allow to be put into play, but once the ball leaves the bat, it’s out of their hands. As a result, pitcher BABIP is heavily influenced by defense and luck, which means the number of hits a pitcher gives up is influenced by things outside of their control. And if hits are somewhat outside of a pitcher’s control, so will their runs allowed totals.'

 

This is a long way of saying that pitchers with a high BABIP are most likely victims of poor defense or bad luck, and neither is the pitcher’s fault. Their defense might be attached to them, but their luck is not, meaning that we typically expect most pitchers with extreme BABIP values to regress toward league average going forward. This is not to say that pitchers have no control over the quality of contact against them, but research has shown that they have very limited control over whether a ball that is put into play becomes a hit.'

 

These things have been said about BABIP for a long time. Perhaps it's just your misunderstanding of the stat that's complicating things.  

 

As far as you assertion that it is NOW being used as a measure of a team's defense, that's just one part of BABIP. So no, it's not really being used as a measure of a team's defense, because a clear cut single or double is just that. That's not to say that a team with better defense won't help a pitcher's BABIP (in the way of turning fringe hits into outs), it will, but there are other factors so it can't all be on the defense. And it still doesn't change the fact that once a ball is in play, what happens is almost completely out of the pitcher's control. So there's no change there either.

[old nurse]

Jimmer. the comment I responded to was

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

 

My response was attempting to point out there has been pleny of debate on these boards, sometimes not nice, about defensice metric validity and what BABIP really measures. Does debate about science and math draw out less ire? No. Look at your post.

[nicksaviking]

Jimmer. the comment I responded to was

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

 

My response was attempting to point out there has been pleny of debate on these boards, sometimes not nice, about defensice metric validity and what BABIP really measures. Does debate about science and math draw out less ire? No. Look at your post.

I guess the debates over defensive metrics can get feisty, but from my perspective the positivity/negativity arguments seem to have a whole different level of animosity. In fact, I don't think I'd view any other topic as having animosity.

[jimmer]

 

Jimmer. the comment I responded to was

 

I'd guess arguements based on math and science tend to draw less ire from many of us "negative nellies", not that faith in your club should draw such harsh rebuke.

 

My response was attempting to point out there has been pleny of debate on these boards, sometimes not nice, about defensice metric validity and what BABIP really measures. Does debate about science and math draw out less ire? No. Look at your post.

Does my post have ire or am I just trying to point out what BABIP is all about to someone who doesn't seem to understand it?  Again, there's no personal shot in my post.  I'm not sure how one can read my post and think I'm fired up at all or that it's a mean post.  If it's because of the bolded parts, you'll notice I bolded your comments and the comments of mine (or the quoted ones) that are bolded touch upon your bolded remarks the most.

[jimmer]

 

I guess the debates over defensive metrics can get feisty, but from my perspective the positivity/negativity arguments seem to have a whole different level of animosity. In fact, I don't think I'd view any other topic as having animosity.

I'd agree. 

[Craig Arko]

Maybe it's time to let it go and enjoy the nice Springtime (or dislike it, if that's how you roll).

[jimmer]

I apologize to old nurse for misunderstanding the point of his post when he mentioned BABIP.  He was pointing out that metrics is a hot topic point by using BABIP as an example.  I didn't notice that was what he was using the BABIP comment for. To me, it seemed like he was saying math guys flip flopped on the use of BABIP and I responded. I don't think I did it in a rude way at all.  I think I was just trying to touch on his points to explain that hadn't happened.  I already explained why I used the bold parts, so I won't explain that again.

 

In any event, I misunderstood his point, and that's on me.  So sorry about that.  I didn't purposely do it though,  I didn't try and put anyone's words in their mouth in order to talk about a stat. I certainly didn't think I was, in any way, rude on either post, but if it came off that way, I apologize for that as well.  

[jimmer]

Bump.

[Craig Arko]

 

Bump.

Moonwalk.

[nicksaviking]

 

Bump.

 

Why?!

[glunn]

Moderator note -- any gloating in this thread at the expense of other members may lead to an infraction point.

[DaveW]

 

Moderator note -- any gloating in this thread at the expense of other members may lead to an infraction point.

April 1st:

SVD: I think the Twins will have 30 wins by June 1st.

Brock: LOL Dave, put down the crack pipe, Twins suck they will have 10 wins at most.

 

Who is the crack smoker now BROCK??!?!

[nytwinsfan]

I just came to Twins Daily and there were three diaries about negativity on the right-hand side of the front page. Apparently we, as a community, would much rather be discussing so-called negativity than discussing EITHER (1) the Twins' great start and why they have been able to do that, OR (2) how the Twins have a lot they could improve on and how they could do that. I realize me commenting here keeps one of those three diaries on the front page, but I think the absurdity (imo) of this trend is worth pointing out.

[Craig Arko]

Here's a fun little bit, and it does come from a site that makes heated arguments in many others (including this one) look pretty darn mild. I kinda like it.

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/guides/2010/11/getting-to-qed-part-1.ars

[Craig Arko]

I'd say we found Epic Fail territory here in more ways than one.

 

Maybe next year, when they win some.

[Craig Arko]

Well, it seems to be down to just the usual suspects, plus those who recently registered new accounts (or perhaps second accounts).

 

All in all, things seem a little lighter in mood. Still a bit too much 'kneel before Zod' for my taste, but that's livable.

[Squirrel]

Well, it seems to be down to just the usual suspects, plus those who recently registered new accounts (or perhaps second accounts).

All in all, things seem a little lighter in mood. Still a bit too much 'kneel before Zod' for my taste, but that's livable.

In a recent contract negotiation, the lawyer for 'our side' reminded us of a saying ... if neither side is completely happy, you've probably found the right balance. The same could apply here.

[ashbury]

Well, it seems to be down to just the usual suspects, plus those who recently registered new accounts (or perhaps second accounts).

 

All in all, things seem a little lighter in mood. Still a bit too much 'kneel before Zod' for my taste, but that's livable.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/39144907.jpg

Mind. Blown.

[Craig Arko]

Gold Glove defense, guys.