right but that's just one "intangible." you could just say the Reds had more energy or were hotter at the time or something and weigh that more heavily in your opinion and justify picking the Reds whether it makes sense or not. my point is that analysis of intangibles is inherently subjective

Eskin thinks the Phillies should go after Manny.

FFS

Barry Jive wrote:right but that's just one "intangible." you could just say the Reds had more energy or were hotter at the time or something and weigh that more heavily in your opinion and justify picking the Reds whether it makes sense or not. my point is that analysis of intangibles is inherently subjective

That's why they're intangible ffs.

Besides it's more fun to say the Phils will beat the Rockies in the NLDS because of playoff experience and Chuck Manuel and heart and guts and moxie than it is just to say the playoffs are a crap shoot. It's more fun than just adding up WARS and UZRs too.

Then the other guy can say the Rockies have the advantage because of Coors Field and youth and hunger and drive and the Tulowitzki effect and the secret sauce.

Then when one of the teams wins the series one guy can be "right." And that's what is important. He can say he "called it." lol omg

Besides, the playoffs are a crap shoot anyway.

TheFrank wrote:Eskin thinks the Phillies should go after Manny.

FFS

Pretty much everything Eskin says about the Phillies is FFS-worthy.

Swiggers wrote:

TheFrank wrote:Eskin thinks the Phillies should go after Manny.

FFS

Pretty much everything Eskin says about the Phillies is FFS-worthy.

Jimmy Rollins wears high socks.

NOT A LEADER.

Jon Paul Morosi (foxsports) wrote:Amaro is very satisfied with reports on Thome, as he prepares to play in the field on a limited basis. Thome, 41, has played just four games at first base since 2005 – and none since 2007. “Our medical people are surprised at the shape he’s in,” Amaro said. “They think he might be better now than he was when we first signed him in 2002.” Amaro said it’s conceivable that Thome could play first base as often as four or five times per month.

Barry Jive wrote:i should clarify. i mean because they're immeasurable, a writer can choose whomever he wants when he rates intangibles. i'm not saying they don't exist, just that it doesn't mean anything when someone rates one set against another.

Intangibles really are a crock because for a lot of the claims, they're actually testable and would show up in some stat somewhere. We'd see a trend among players/teams with intangible attribute X and players/teams without it. But nope, nothing, ever.

Warszawa wrote:

Jon Paul Morosi (foxsports) wrote:Amaro is very satisfied with reports on Thome, as he prepares to play in the field on a limited basis. Thome, 41, has played just four games at first base since 2005 – and none since 2007. “Our medical people are surprised at the shape he’s in,” Amaro said. “They think he might be better now than he was when we first signed him in 2002.” Amaro said it’s conceivable that Thome could play first base as often as four or five times per month.

I sort of recall him saying that the reason he couldn't play first with the Dodgers in '09 is because he would need a longer time to prepare for it. Maybe that's the case now.

i going to home depot to buy a box of intangibles

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:i should clarify. i mean because they're immeasurable, a writer can choose whomever he wants when he rates intangibles. i'm not saying they don't exist, just that it doesn't mean anything when someone rates one set against another.

Intangibles really are a crock because for a lot of the claims, they're actually testable and would show up in some stat somewhere. We'd see a trend among players/teams with intangible attribute X and players/teams without it. But nope, nothing, ever.

if you can't prove something exists, can you prove it doesn't exist?

FTN wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:i should clarify. i mean because they're immeasurable, a writer can choose whomever he wants when he rates intangibles. i'm not saying they don't exist, just that it doesn't mean anything when someone rates one set against another.

Intangibles really are a crock because for a lot of the claims, they're actually testable and would show up in some stat somewhere. We'd see a trend among players/teams with intangible attribute X and players/teams without it. But nope, nothing, ever.

if you can't prove something exists, can you prove it doesn't exist?

Without sufficient evidence, you simply accept the null hypothesis, which is no effect. That's not saying something like "veteranosity" (or what have you) can't have a real effect, just that there's no reason to accept that claim with available data.

null hypothesis

this fuckin guy

Woody wrote:null hypothesis

this #$!&@ guy

u mad bro?

Isn't a null hypothesis some kind of spider?

I do know that teams that have spiders in their clubhouse tend to lose more games than they should and that's an intangible right there.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

FTN wrote:

CrashburnAlley wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:i should clarify. i mean because they're immeasurable, a writer can choose whomever he wants when he rates intangibles. i'm not saying they don't exist, just that it doesn't mean anything when someone rates one set against another.

Intangibles really are a crock because for a lot of the claims, they're actually testable and would show up in some stat somewhere. We'd see a trend among players/teams with intangible attribute X and players/teams without it. But nope, nothing, ever.

if you can't prove something exists, can you prove it doesn't exist?

Without sufficient evidence, you simply accept the null hypothesis, which is no effect. That's not saying something like "veteranosity" (or what have you) can't have a real effect, just that there's no reason to accept that claim with available data.

You don't accept the null hypothesis. You either reject it or fail to reject it. And you can only reject a null hypothesis if you have done a test. And even if you do a test and reject the null hypothesis, you are only rejecting it based on a particular way of measuring the variables you are using in your test of association (and at a particular confidence level). There is such a thing as falsely rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true (Type I error). Intangibles by definition are difficult to measure (not immeasurable). If you have crappy measures or inadequate operationalizations of variables measuring difficult to measure concepts then you could certainly not see an association that actually exists, causing you to falsely reject the null hypothesis of no association. I don't know what studies you are talking about that tested the association between intangible attribute X and some outcome but I doubt things like "veteranosity", "leadership" or "clubhouse cancer" or whatever have been operationalized in some definitive way to conclude that they never have and never will be associated with winning, success, etc.

snap

great name for a rock band

Bucky wrote:great name for a rock band

The Null Hypothesis, comprised of members rejected from more acceptable bands.

or would they be accepted into The Null Hypothesis after being rejected from other bands?

PhDave?

FFS, "it can't be proven statistically" is not the same thing as "it doesn't exist." This is the biggest problem with most Sabermetric-oriented writers. They think it IS the same thing.

Baseball players are humans, not robots. Things happen in their brains that lead to them doing things that defy the numbers sometimes.

Swiggers wrote:FFS, "it can't be proven statistically" is not the same thing as "it doesn't exist." This is the biggest problem with most Sabermetric-oriented writers.

That and all them null hypothesises.

But truthfully, a lot of good Saber types have evolved beyond being totally wedded to what the computer tells them and blend a nice combination of the real world along with the advanced metric stuff to provide a nice bit of analysis.

There are quite a few guys who are not from the "I'm so smart and you're so stupid because you don't have all the answers like me" school. And they put out some good stuff.

And a lot of the more main stream types are integrating some of the good stuff from the Saber world into their writing. It's getting much better.