Uhh, everyone? Who doesn't look at batting average?
Wrestler you like, but rest of the IWC doesn't?
- Thread starter pshanbhag92
- Start date
Third time. He was in TNA for a brief time as Austin Aries before his run as Austin Starr. Didn't last very long and I think he left in somewhat stupid circumstances (missing a flight to work an ROH show, or some shit).
Papa Pillman
I've got more Ho's than Jim Duggan
I think the point was that anyone who knows baseball now knows that batting average is a nearly meaningless and most often highly luck based statistic that doesn't provide a clear measure of a player's performance.
Advanced Metrics should be the only stats seriously evaluated in sports now. When stats like OPS+ exist, which are vastly superior to any of the traditional staistics, why would you ever put real stock in something as flawed as batting average?
As a side note...
Gelgarin's last post in this thread is one of the best written I've read on this board. Props.
Of course, by itself, it doesn't provide a clear measure of a player's performance, but it provides a VERY good suggestion on how good of a hitter someone is. Anyone who says otherwise is overthinking baseball.
Oh, I'm sorry, do "Advanced Metrics" completely ignore batting average?
How is batting average flawed?
I guess anything to keep you from having to defend your erroneous position...
NotaHippie
Dark Match Jobber
It provides just one look at a player's hitting ability. Not even a very good one. For example, a player could be hitting .325 but if he's a slap happy singles hitter, he's not as good of a hitter as someone hitting .290 but with a lot more power. Batting average treats a single the same as a home run.
Papa Pillman
I've got more Ho's than Jim Duggan
It's a 150 year old stat that vastly "under thinks" the sport.
Yes they do.
Instead they factor OBP, another stat that isn't great, but is better than BA.
As an evaluation of performance? In a few ways. Here are the most notable:
-It doesn't factor in walks
-It doesn't factor in BABIP variables
-It counts all hits as equals(in BA HR=Single)
Here's a hypothetical example as well (Don't worry, I'll keep the numbers simple to digest for you)...
Player A has 500 PA. He gets 150 hits, 0 walks, 10 Doubles, and 10 HRs
Player B has 500 PA. He gets 120 hits, 50 Walks, 25 Doubles, and 25 HRs
Player A's BA is .300
Player B's BA is .267
Batting Average alone says player A is clearly superior. A look at the numbers that produced that result shows that player B was the more productive and effective player, reaching base more often with far more total bases.
The only reason that advanced metrics aren't seen in the mainstream is because most people are too stupid and/or lazy to understand them(I'm not putting you in this category, but it does apply to most of the masses).
I'm sorry that I can't see an art as merely a bottom line business(and if you don't see professional wrestling as a true artform that's fine, but it doesn't automatically mean it is not). Van Gogh died completely broke and his brilliance went unappreciated until after he was gone, it doesn't change the fact that he is likely the greatest post-impressionism painter that ever lived. You can make a long-winded argument about why that analogy doesn't equate to you, but it still equates to those of us who appreciate much of the indy action that you so freely shit on. Some people are willing to sacrifice(even monetarilty) for the sake of their art. If money is all you see in life or wrestling, good for you, I choose to look for something more meaningful to me. So just because I wasn't kean to continue this circle with you doesn't mean I can't defend my position, it means continuing to defend it in this case will be just as productive as banging my head into the wall, because you're always gonna have some self-serving comeback, just as you did in response to Gelgarin's extremely well concieved post.
That's because batting average isn't about finding power, batting average is simply how many times you reach base safely out of how many at-bats you have. How is that not a good statistic to know?
There are other stats which can tell you different things, but no one would dispute a .325 hitter is better than a .220 hitter (assuming 600 ABs).
No, it doesn't. It is a stat which tells you exactly what it is supposed to. It tells you how many times a player reaches base safely in relation to how many at-bats the player has.
To say it's not a good indicator of a good hitter is silly.
You do realize that OBP uses the same statistics batting average does, plus walks, right?
No one has ever argued BA on it's own is an evaluation of performance. Your insistence of arguing this when no one has is silly.
But to argue it's not a good indication of hitting ability is silly.
But it doesn't include those plate appearances either. So the fact it doesn't do what it never attempts to do makes it ridiculous for you to criticize the stat.
So? It doesn't factor in foul balls either.
Yes, that's exactly what it is supposed to do.
No, it does not. Batting average says player A clearly reaches base safely in his at-bats more often than player B does.
Or because of people like you, who dismiss traditional stats because they don't do what they were never intended to do, without realizing no one has ever said one stat should tell the entire story about a player.
Those who practice sabermetrics cannot even agree on how to evaluate certain stats. Those who compile large number of statistics into one stat often don't bother to understand each of the individual statistics which make them up.
For example, let's take OBPS. If we look at OBPS, we can get an idea of his success at the plate, but how did that success come? Did it come because he was great at hitting safely? Did it come because his name is Adam Dunn and he hits 40 HRs a year while batting .240?
The reason your statistics haven't caught on is because you refuse to understand the usefulness of the traditional statistics. Every statistic has it strengths and weaknesses, and anyone who dismisses one set of numbers for another misses the point.
That's why there is so much resistance. If people like you would quit being so ridiculous about the use of traditional statistics, and would use them as a tool in the same way you want others to use your statistics, then people would be more likely to care.
That's because you don't see pro wrestling as a business. It is. It always has been, it always will be.
Again, no one said there isn't an art in pro wrestling. There is. It's just that "art" isn't the moves you use, but rather making people care about you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Van Gogh didn't create his products for a publicly owned business and Van Gogh didn't work in a business where to practice his craft, he had to be hired by a company.
Because it is arguing apples to oranges is good enough for me.
Like who?
Who has the WWE thrown a $400,000 contract at and been turned down by so they can work for $75 a night, 15 days a month?
Money isn't what I see, it has nothing to do with me. It's what the wrestling promotions see. It's what the wrestling promotions care about. Without money, promotions cannot survive. For you to deny this basic fact just screams ignorance.
Gelgarin did have a good post, laying out the traditional "pro wrestling is like movies" argument. It doesn't mean it was a correct post though. I can wax eloquently for 3 pages if I so desired on why the Atlanta Braves have been a better franchise than the New York Yankees, crafting brilliant arguments which, on their own would be correct, but at the end of the day, I can never change the fact the Yankees simply have been better.
#MrScissorsKick
I'm an Alex Morgan Guy
yup. never getting into an argument with slyfox.
ever.
very insightful on baseball statistics.
back to the thread..... ehh ryback
ever.
very insightful on baseball statistics.
back to the thread..... ehh ryback
Right?!
Anyways...
I've been shocked at the lack of love for Fandango. I know the hardcore IWC fans are high on Johnny Curtis the wrestler, but 90% of the IWC seem to be shitting on this character. I simply don't get it. I'd much rather a CHARACTER than another generic name. But yeah... I think he's awesome.
And of all time, I'd have to say it's between The Ultimate Warrior and Shane Douglas. Love the both of them no matter how much their reputations get shit on by the IWC.
I've been shocked at the lack of love for Fandango. I know the hardcore IWC fans are high on Johnny Curtis the wrestler, but 90% of the IWC seem to be shitting on this character. I simply don't get it. I'd much rather a CHARACTER than another generic name. But yeah... I think he's awesome.
And of all time, I'd have to say it's between The Ultimate Warrior and Shane Douglas. Love the both of them no matter how much their reputations get shit on by the IWC.
Since when?
CleverName51
Little Jimmy
John Cena...I enjoy the guy...
pshanbhag92
Dark Match Winner
Seriously. What are the IWC's opinion on Jim Cornette in general.
I think he is really smart and has a great mind for wrestling. Although his re-booking of the invasion angle was complete shit.
His rants on people are completely based on who he likes or dislikes, but they are very entertaining.
I think he is really smart and has a great mind for wrestling. Although his re-booking of the invasion angle was complete shit.
His rants on people are completely based on who he likes or dislikes, but they are very entertaining.
Papa Pillman
I've got more Ho's than Jim Duggan
Perhaps Cornette's biggest appeal right now is shoot interviews because he has contact with almost everyone still in and around the business and isn't afraid to speak his mind on anyone or any topic.
As far as from a booking standpoint, Cornette's "vision" of pro wrestling is dated. If he would have had his way ROH would've become a modern clone of Smoky Mountain. The company suffered creatively and culturally with him as its leader, and has rebounded quickly from a quality perspective since his departure.
Cornette's mind for the business shouldn't be questioned, but he has blinders on that are a couple of decades behind. I believe that he could still be an assett to a company in an on-screen role if his behind-the-scenes influences were minimalized.
Similar threads
- Poll
