Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
And that's the problem Sabermetrics. The "eye test" is more important than any "formula." If you take advanced statistics, that is one of the first things that you are taught. With sabermaticians, they say if your observations don't fit their formula, ignore them. That is unscientific. Scientists make their formulas fit their observations.
I disagree on Grich. Like Simmons, he is better than mistakes in the HOF. He is not top 10 in my opinion. He is not even the best 2b not in the HOF, that is Lou Whitaker. He is not a slam dunk, but I am fine with him in or out of HOF once Whitaker and Garvey are in.
We do agree that Garvey would be towards the bottom of the 1st basemen in the HOF. I just have him a lot higher than you. I have him only behind Keith Hernandez, who along with Alan Trammell are my 2 slam dunks. If we are taking guys who in my mind are marginal candidates, I would take a winner like Garvey and guys who had higher peaks like Mattingly and Murphy. Guys who everyone knew were superstars, but just were not for long enough. It is the Hall of Fame with emphasis on fame, not being above average for a long time.
|
this is absolute nonsense.
the "eye test" HAS BEEN PROVEN to be garbage. confirmation bias (as exhibited by you) recency bias..etc skew reality for people.
Not to mention that a formula applied to everyone will result in an applicable ratio of production even if not an accurate one. so even if WAR didn't nail player's exact win value, it DOES give an accurate measure of production relative to each other.