What was the bet on Kemp?

I don't care about the bet I just care to see the projection systems humiliated. ZIPS projected KEMP for 0 war on fangraphs lolololol.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I don't care about the bet I just care to see the projection systems humiliated. ZIPS projected KEMP for 0 war on fangraphs lolololol.
Click to expand...

Problem with people's use of the projection system is that they don't realive the variation for an individual player. When looking at the whole league it's not hard to look accurate since there will be lots of under and over performers. BUT to use it as the gospel on an individual player is foolish and speaks to the user's lack of understanding with statistics.
 
I'm pretty sure that KeMVPs protection is allowing Freddie to swipe more bags too. How is that calculated?
 
thethe said:
The analysis you want me to perform is based on a foundational truth which I don't believe is accurate.
Click to expand...

Well, my invitation is for you to put forth your case. I didn't place any restrictions on how you do that. The whole board is waiting. Don't disappoint us.
 
nsacpi said:
Well, my invitation is for you to put forth your case. I didn't place any restrictions on how you do that.
Click to expand...

There is no way to quantify the intangible impacts that Kemp has on the team such as lengthening the lineup, forcing pitchers to pitch to freeman in big spots and the assurance that we can get mutiple runs with one swing of the bat. What I see is a guy that will post a 900 OPS and hit 100HRs over the three years he's under control. Pitchers like Alex wood are far easier to replace then a legit middle of the order bat like Kemp. Therefore, in my very unscientific analysis I think it's a home run deal for the braves.
 
thethe said:
There is no way to quantify the intangible impacts that Kemp has on the team such as lengthening the lineup, forcing pitchers to pitch to freeman in big spots and the assurance that we can get mutiple runs with one swing of the bat. What I see is a guy that will post a 900 OPS and hit 100HRs over the three years he's under control. Pitchers like Alex wood are far easier to replace then a legit middle of the order bat like Kemp. Therefore, in my very unscientific analysis I think it's a home run deal for the braves.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the effort. I'm not going to respond. Because there is nothing to respond to. If you want to understand why I say that I'm going to cut and paste a little blurb in wikipidia that illustrates some of the issues involved with the kind of argument you are advancing:

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, the philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]
 
The presumption that something isn't real because we can't prove it is unfortunate. Everything was unproven at some point in our history. I get being skeptical but completely discounting is foolish.
 
msstate7 said:
Then responds with a page haha
Click to expand...

come on...how often does a quote from Bertrand Russell find its way here...

But actually I have a little more to say. The way I see it people like me who advocate analytical tools are akin to those who try to construct a telescope to see whether there is a teapot or anything between Mars and Earth. We readily agree that our telescope is not perfect.

Those who reject analytical tools not only reject the telescope but seem to also reject building any other type of telescope or tool to advance their argument. To them the existence of the teapot is so apparent that there is no need to resort to any sort of tools of persuasion.

Anyhow that's my take on my little exchange with thethe on this matter. I had hoped (perhaps unrealistically) that he would advance some sort of argument other than bald assertion.
 
nsacpi said:
In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, the philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2]
Click to expand...

This assumes orthodox people have an interest in proving it.
 
thethe said:
The presumption that something isn't real because we can't prove it is unfortunate. Everything was unproven at some point in our history. I get being skeptical but completely discounting is foolish.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a former brother-in-law around a barbecue a few years ago. The topic was whether fiscal stimulus had saved or produced any jobs. My former brother-in-law made the pronouncement that he only believed in things he could see and that he couldn't see a single job produced by fiscal stimulus. Therefore fiscal stimulus must not work. I responded in a way that I now regret. I won't go into the details of my response.

But the way I wished I had responded was to note that standard economic analysis was just a tool for trying to measure something very difficult to measure. And left it at that. Those who prefer to simply believe what they want to believe can continue doing so.
 
smootness said:
This assumes orthodox people have an interest in proving it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. Which maybe is why some of these discussions are a waste of time.

Although there is also a long history of believers attempting to construct logical proofs of their beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top