He has never allowed a run at Citizens Bank Park, in two career starts while pitching for the Cardinals in 2008 and '09.

smitty wrote:I think the BP folks (and others) did some studies that showed zero positive effect of veteranosity in the post-season (when veteranosity is most valued).

Trent Steele wrote:

smitty wrote:I think the BP folks (and others) did some studies that showed zero positive effect of veteranosity in the post-season (when veteranosity is most valued).

Probably right, but it doesn't answer the question of whether there are individuals who can truly add more through their "veteran leadership." The fact that as a group it doesn't matter is hardly surprising.

Trent Steele wrote:

smitty wrote:I think the BP folks (and others) did some studies that showed zero positive effect of veteranosity in the post-season (when veteranosity is most valued).

Probably right, but it doesn't answer the question of whether there are individuals who can truly add more through their "veteran leadership." The fact that as a group it doesn't matter is hardly surprising.

Bucky wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

smitty wrote:I think the BP folks (and others) did some studies that showed zero positive effect of veteranosity in the post-season (when veteranosity is most valued).

Probably right, but it doesn't answer the question of whether there are individuals who can truly add more through their "veteran leadership." The fact that as a group it doesn't matter is hardly surprising.

so the point here is, if it doesn't matter as a group, then they're not adding anything. Or what they're adding is worthless.

z ipper wrote:pineiro a phillies

Ace Rothstein wrote:

z ipper wrote:pineiro a phillies

didnt know he still played

FTN wrote:its really weird that we got him on a minor league deal.

hard to believe he couldnt get a ML deal worth at least 1-2M

smitty wrote:Isn't a null hypothesis some kind of spider?

Ace Rothstein wrote:

z ipper wrote:pineiro a phillies

didnt know he still played

In some ways I'm playing devil's advocate. I was enjoying this thread quite a bit, and then I feared it was devolving into a trend I feel like I'm seeing that disturbs me. I don't know if it's the Moneyball movie or the HOF voting or general award season or whatever, but I feel like for many (and I'm talking generally, on the interwebs, not our team), the arguments have reverted to early-generation tomfoolery. Many have gone backwards to the argument that EVERY answer is in the data, and if you don't see that or agree with that, you are a caveman noob moron. The other side is just as guilty with Saber Boy accusations and get out of your basement and watch the game stupidity.

The data is mind-numbingly important. There are still plenty of breakthroughs to come from the data, and I'm convinced that many of them will come from people on this distribution list, but don't get trapped in the data. Don't just reject out of hand circumstantial evidence that cannot be proven with the data. That stuff is important too, and we can all learn from it. We can all get upset when someone like Jon Heyman shows a remarkable ability to break a story, yet at times shows a profound lack of understanding of the game. The easy reaction is to make fun and call him a moron and joke with all your friends in a corner. It's also an opportunity to educate, and more importantly to grow. The first person who wants to be a story breaker, who understands the value of picking up a telephone and creating a network of sources, AND understanding the value of sabermetrics and how to apply them... That person is going to be huge.

Kevin makes a great point. 2011 was my first season in clubhouses, and it gave me a new appreciation for the narratives I once mocked from my mom's basement while attempting to dehumanize the players. I still don't know how to qualify the human element with players, but I certainly have more respect for it now.

The evolution of catcher defense measurements seems like a cautionary tale for all of us. Noise-to-signal ratio is generally massive in baseball, and each advance gets a little bit closer to the signal but not necessarily actually close, and sometimes leads to conclusions that are actually further away from being correct. Almost every argument I see seems a bit bad to me. Except "I dunno." "I dunno" is a pretty great argument.