|
gaxsezu posted:I will never understand how people can stand to listen to Francesa. I listen for his rage.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
MourningView posted:They do all the time. They try to break stories, do a lot of crowing when they successfully do so, or get pissed off (justifiably, I should say) when they aren't properly credited for it. But so does TMZ. And I don't think they feel that they work by the same set of standards as the New York Times. I know it sort of unfairly shields them from criticism (in the same way The Daily Show is), but I feel there is a difference in a company aiming to be a news outlet and one aiming to be a gossip site. One has an ombudsman and the other has editors who post pictures of athlete's dicks. I do get what you're saying though. They do fall in that weird middle ground where they get to be goofy and dumb 90% of the time but pretend to be hardcore journalists on occasion and expect to be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
gaxsezu posted:I will never understand how people can stand to listen to Francesa. I heard he was really easy to fall asleep to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Francesa is very entertaining if you remember to not take him seriously at all. I mean when I'm back home I always drive listening to the FAN just because there's really nothing else worthwhile on the radio
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Yeah, NY radio kind of sucks. It's basically hip-hop and AC, and for talk you have the FAN, ESPN (worse somehow) and 770 if you need to get your Limbaugh fix. I stick to NPR mainly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:I don't know where else to put this but Mike Francesa is announcing that WFAN is moving to 101.9. What does this mean for the Mets long-term? Please don't say ESPN Radio, since that means I won't be able to reliably listen to games (especially at night).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
WFAN is staying on 660, 101.9 is going to be a simulcast of the AM station. I can see eventually them flipping 660 to something else, but they cut their signal to a huge degree if they go strictly to FM. You can pick up the FAN in Florida, for god's sake. That said, nothing changes immediately for baseball. The Yankees are signed on with WCBS and the Mets on the FAN through the end of next year. ESPN is hell bent on getting one of the teams, and if I had to guess, I'd think it's more likely they end up with the Mets. If CBS can only hold on to one, they'll go with the Yankees. That said, I can't see CBS losing either of them without a fight-they've got plenty of money and plenty of stations to put them on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
Beano Cook died today at the age of 81. Most of the Something Awful generation will remember him as a doddering, senile man who would be rolled out on ESPN from time to time to make awful pronouncements about how good Notre Dame was when the team record was 2-8. He actually was an authoritative voice in the sports world before that, and also a sports information director at his alma mater, Pitt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
TL posted:WFAN is staying on 660, 101.9 is going to be a simulcast of the AM station. I can see eventually them flipping 660 to something else, but they cut their signal to a huge degree if they go strictly to FM. You can pick up the FAN in Florida, for god's sake. A huge reason why WFAN (and so many other AM stations) is moving to FM is that the typical audience for AM stations are really getting up there in age. Not to mention now there's a whole younger generation that's never listened to AM radio. Signal streingth means nothing if you can't get young ears to listen (and besides, most radio stations now stream). That said, I'm kinda surprised they're doing it since ESPN Radio in NYC did it earlier this year and from all accounts, haven't been succeeding that well. As for Beano Cook, I only know of him because Tony Kornheiser used to bring him up so often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Beano Cook died today at the age of 81. Most of the Something Awful generation will remember him as a doddering, senile man who would be rolled out on ESPN from time to time to make awful pronouncements about how good Notre Dame was when the team record was 2-8. Wow. My dad hated Beano Cook because he was always so...what's the word, pretentious? Like you said, he was an authority in the sports world, but that doesn't mean he was the best authority and heaven forbid you had an opinion different from his. Then again this is third or fourth-hand information by the time it got to my dad, so whatever, it's still sad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Most of the Something Awful generation will remember him as a doddering, senile man who would be rolled out on ESPN from time to time to make awful pronouncements about how good Notre Dame was when the team record was 2-8.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
LARGE THE HEAD posted:Beano Cook died today at the age of 81. Most of the Something Awful generation will remember him as a doddering, senile man who would be rolled out on ESPN from time to time to make awful pronouncements about how good Notre Dame was when the team record was 2-8. Unfortunately he'll forever be remembered for Ron Pawlus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
Which is totally unfair because he said dumb things about Notre Dame on like an hourly basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
MourningView posted:Which is totally unfair because he said dumb things about Notre Dame on like an hourly basis. Crazy Ted fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Oct 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
Crazy Ted posted:Beano Cook was pretty awesome if you could ever get the chance to listen to him do a longer interview.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Rich Hammond, beat writer for the LA Kings, is actually a team employee so he can't interview locked out players or the NHL gets really mad. So he's leaving for the OC Register to cover USC. Deadspin has a pretty good writeup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Posted without comment, via Dan Szymborski on twitter http://www.lowellsun.com/sports/ci_21770834/baseballs-stat-geeks-have-gone-too-far
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
AlleyViper posted:Posted without comment, via Dan Szymborski on twitter Wow, that truly is an awful article. It's amazing how many people can go "I understand stats" and then completely miss the point. Just FYI, Tony Armas' line in the year that he criticizes Bill James for calling him the worst center fielder in baseball was .218/.254/.453 for a wonderful 85 OPS+, and he even led the league by grounding into 31 double plays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Hey, that guy invented Catcher's Earned Run Average. He's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
quote:Here in the office the other night we had a real verbal donnybrook going between David Pevear, Matt Langone and me
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
quote:Well, here's what I think of WAR: As dreadful a year as the Red Sox had, they were 47-43 before David Ortiz got hurt on July 16. They were 22-50 without him in the second half. Ergo, for the Red Sox to be four games above .500, in that stretch, their replacement designated hitters would have had to come up 16 more wins than they did. He literally thinks this is how WAR works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
hcreight posted:He literally thinks this is how WAR works.  Although the point stands that Ortiz had a pretty good year. But that's not the statistical measure of why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Yeah, with slight exception to the Tony Armas bit, I didn't think it was an awful article. Then he gets to the WAR bit and it's clear that he's a moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
The older SABR dudes are wildly out of touch with current baseball thought. It's a really dumb article but honestly it's not really anything new in terms of the guys involved in the first wave of advanced thinking. Even Bill James is pretty far behind the times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
hcreight posted:He literally thinks this is how WAR works. Baseball needs +/-.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
hcreight posted:He literally thinks this is how WAR works. quote:Well, here's what I think of WAR: As dreadful a year as the Red Sox had, they were 47-43 before David Ortiz got hurt on July 16. They were 22-50 without him in the second half. Ergo, for the Red Sox to be four games above .500, in that stretch, their replacement designated hitters would have had to come up 16 more wins than they did. Can someone explain his math to me? 22-50 = 72 games so .500 would be 36-36 right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
He's saying to be 4 games over .500, which would be 38-34.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Frot Lesnar posted:Can someone explain his math to me? He's saying the Red Sox are a .522 team with Ortiz and a .302 team without them. If this sample set were over 10,000 games interlaced with and without Ortiz I would be inclined to agree. It's just a meaningless sample size on something that will converge super-slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:He's saying to be 4 games over .500, which would be 38-34. Thanks I was ping ponging back and forth between normal .500 and sports .500.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
hcreight posted:He literally thinks this is how WAR works. The best logical-extreme example of this kind of thinking were the people saying Peyton Manning should have won the NFL MVP last year without playing a game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Can we just all agree that baseball fans seem to care more about sperging over numbers than enjoying the game. The whole everything can be explained with our beloved sabermetrics is just as terrible as Joe Morgan and his everything can be explained by watching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
calcio posted:Can we just all agree that baseball fans seem to care more about sperging over numbers than enjoying the game. The whole everything can be explained with our beloved sabermetrics is just as terrible as Joe Morgan and his everything can be explained by watching. And so it has been declared: do not discuss baseball in any fashion, or if you must, do not use predictive stats
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
calcio posted:Can we just all agree that baseball fans seem to care more about sperging over numbers than enjoying the game. The whole everything can be explained with our beloved sabermetrics is just as terrible as Joe Morgan and his everything can be explained by watching.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:Except that's almost never been a legit thing. Advanced metrics serve to enhance how awesome baseball is, not detract from it. For a prime example of this, look at legendary players. I can think of very few guys considered all time greats at any point who have seen their stock fall with the strides made in statistical analysis. On the contrary in a ton of cases guys like Willie Mays have earned an even greater esteem and appreciate for how awesome they were due to this kind of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
calcio posted:I'm not a baseball fan at all but am curious. Why have the A's been so average at winning since their adoption of more "advanced stats". Because other teams adapt too and they have more money. GMs every year come up with their own formula's to gain edge, but when one GM has 200 million to spend without giving a gently caress and/or a bigger market, they tend to have bigger advantages when using the same tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Tae posted:Because other teams adapt too and they have more money. just to take a really easy example, the 03-07 Red Sox.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Nothing exemplifies the randomness of a short series more than the St. Louis loving Cardinals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
calcio posted:I'm not a baseball fan at all but am curious. Why have the A's been so average at winning since their adoption of more "advanced stats". St Louis seems like a very successful franchise yet not in the same category as NYC or Boston for just gulping up all the best players. Are they proponents of sabermetrics? As has been said, pretty much all other teams have adopted advanced metrics as well, and have better budget situations. That said, the A's haven't lost more than 88 games (74-88 last year) since the turn of the millennium and in that time won 5 AL West titles, including this season, and came 2nd four times. But the Cardinals have insane voodoo magic in the playoffs so they win anyway. also a really good offense that led the league in OBP and great pitching depth
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
The Prisoner posted:Except that's almost never been a legit thing. Advanced metrics serve to enhance how awesome baseball is, not detract from it. For a prime example of this, look at legendary players. I can think of very few guys considered all time greats at any point who have seen their stock fall with the strides made in statistical analysis. On the contrary in a ton of cases guys like Willie Mays have earned an even greater esteem and appreciate for how awesome they were due to this kind of stuff. Yeah, the only thing advanced/predictive stats really cut down on is guys who seem to have really good seasons out of nowhere or go on hot streaks in the first 3 months due to unsustainable BABIP. By using them you know that they will regress to the mean and teams can't go and sell high/justify selling the more talented backup anymore. All good things imho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
calcio posted:I'm not a baseball fan at all but am curious. Why have the A's been so average at winning since their adoption of more "advanced stats". St Louis seems like a very successful franchise yet not in the same category as NYC or Boston for just gulping up all the best players. Are they proponents of sabermetrics? First, let me state that regular season performance is a lot more meaningful than postseason success in discussing how good teams are: it's a sample of 162 games rather than 11-20. Second, consider context: the Cardinals aren't a monstrous spender like the Yankees, though they do have the ability to spend pretty highly (over $110M this season, top-9 in MLB), but they play in a division where even that is a big advantage. The Pirates, Reds, and Brewers are all completely unable to reach that level of spending, capped at about $80M. The Astros and Cubs could reach that high, but both have suffered under some pretty bad front office work and are bad more than they're good. That said, the Cards are clearly doing something right to keep from the fate of the Cubs and Astros. They're clearly pretty good at drafting and developing players (though Pujols at least was a bit of luck), and I think from a non-game-strategy standpoint their Major League coaching staff is probably one of the best. In any event, virtually no one thinks that stats alone are the best way to evaluate players anymore. But those of us on the Internet who aren't trained scouts and don't have time to watch every game sort of by nature have to use them without much context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 20:56
|
|
