I read a few regarding the baseball topic and they seemed to just be a variant of a HS paper with a word min. It states the same crap over and over and over with nothing really new or inventive to add. You could condense and entire series of 30 word bombs into like 2 paragraphs.

So you are saying the quality is much higher than your average post?

Why did you stop responding to the previous line of communication and instead decide to just troll me here?

I stopped responding because I realized I never should have responded to your initial troll, and won't make the same mistake again.

From now on, I will only laugh at your countless flaws. But at the same time, if you ever change your attitude around here and start acting like a normal human I will treat you like one as well.

Broseph,

Wai you gotta hate like that?

This is a solid metaphor.


Thank you


Correct. That's why I didn't do that.


Then it doesn't make sense to compare the length of each of my post, which addresses a lot of topics to the length of another post that may address only one topic, does it?


To be uncharacteristically frank, I'd note that you aren't very good at this borrowing concepts from psychology to subtly undermine others' credibility and that it may not be the greatest idea to attempt that against someone who may be a bit more skilled.


Nope, you get picked on because I'm making points that are strongly rooted in psychology, which means for my points to make sense, it does require some sort of examples and it's ideal to pick on someone who both has a clinically interesting psychological profile (so that the dysfunction is more obvious) and is generally not liked by other posters/lurkers (because it's hard to see the dysfunction in those you like or empathize with). Most human vices I talk about are, practically speaking, present in all of us - they are just much more easily seen in other people, especially those who are weird or whom we don't like.


Can't say I disagree much with this. After all, I started with just one paragraph in that thread, which clearly states all my claims and provides what I thought was sufficient justification (all the numbers I provide later on are, after all, fairly obvious). You then accused me of pulling the numbers out of my ass, called the claim ******ed and asked for more evidence. You only shut up once I hammered the point home with somewhat redundant evidence and explanations.


Hi Shoe. I realize you're sort of trolling Thremp here, but it's a good point regardless. I love how Thremp is all of sudden applying all sorts of standards to others' posts that he can't possibly live up to. Inventive?


I admire your noble intentions but that's not gonna happen.

hands-down squirrel needs more love imo

I guess you could have expanded here to mention you weren't comparing APL directly to post count. The scope of this thread is much narrower than the scope all of one's posts, even if you are discussing several topics in this thread.

If Thremp responded with this post to your characterization of him you would accuse of being defensive/insecure. The common theme in all your posts is your own brilliance and despite thinking the world is fairly meritocratic you seem to be using your intellect solely for arguing on the internet.

this argument is still going on? wtf? seriously what are you guys even getting out of this?

nice

I just control+F my name out of vanity and occasionally read text simply due to proximity. Then I hit my keyboard until words come out. Sometimes it takes a few tries.

There really isn't anything to discuss. Football coaches failboat on 4th down decisions like MLB coaches failboat on lineup construction. Its not a huge deal. Its just life. Then the nubs make weird and esoteric arguments counter to this.

PHONE BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I thought the reason why I used a one-liner instead of a lengthy explanation there was obvious - the bolded above directly supports my point. Either way, you are admitting that the amount and scope of content, as well as the length matters in discussing brevity. Then the length of my posts itself can't solely be used to determine verbosity.


No I wouldn't, because that statement doesn't betray insecurity or defensiveness. Relevant emotions are pity and empathy. Besides, if Thremp wrote it regarding my characterization of him, it would be incorrect. I understand that this is not how you interpreted it, but I was just gently pointing out that you did an obviously poor job. If you disagree, I'd be happy to offer a more detailed critique (I already had it written in my head, which I didn't share in consideration for your feelings, because it may appear to be an attack on your ability to think, though a single thoughtless remark should not be used to judge one's ability to think in general). If you made a perceptive observation, I wouldn't have responded with that, no matter how negative the characterization. You didn't make any observation - you just wrote down what you thought, if true, would be neat. Insults derived through wishful thinking are shallow, transparent and worse, more telling about self than others. They are products of your imagination, after all.

Don't forget that all of this applies to your second attempt (the sentence quoted above) as well, which is a non sequitur. Unlesss, of course, this can be interpreted as part of the "score points by insulting others and deflect others' insults with accusations" game, except I'm not participating. From a pure rhetorical standpoint, your sentence above is the equivalent of some sports bar drunk responding to sober sabermetric reasoning regarding the value of Ryan Howard with "but you people can prove anything with statistics; if you liked Ryan Howard, you'd come up with all these numbers to prove how great he is." Again, if this analogy doesn't make sense, I'd be happy to elaborate.

In any case, I wasn't trying to insult Thremp either - he simply is a great embodiment of the common human vice I've been discussing throughout this entire thread. The same vice we all share, but don't exhibit with such exuberance.


That you can't imagine why someone else would write all that except to flaunt his own brilliance or whatever doesn't mean I think I'm brilliant or that I think my "brilliance" matters. You may not have read my posts in this thread, but they serve directly as a refutation of my brilliance as perceived by many here. Either way, it's strange to insinuate that my posts are too long to read and yet to act as though you know exactly what's in them. One of those pretenses must be false.


Of course I pretty much pointed this out many times already in this thread. Solely, is a stretch, however. I do other useless things with my intellect.


I can't speak for others but the entire spectacle is entertaining.

2p2: Other people (journalists/casual-fans/sports executives) are stupid! Look at all the stupid stuff they say. Look at all this emotional reasoning that doesn't make any logical sense!
PB: 2p2, you make the same class of errors, because of the common human vice we share. In fact, I see that you're making same sort of errors in this thread already.
2p2: tl;dr, PB, you suck because of this and that, I don't care if you're right, because you hurt my feelings. Oh yeah, did I mention your posts are too long?
PB: You see what I mean?


You're trying too hard.


We don't have anywhere near sufficient evidence to say this. Most people who say this commonly assume that people will hit the same regardless of lineup spot, which is obviously false.


How am I supposed to Control+F for this?

<3

Such epic skilllllz nao.

ETA: Just FYI for those folks who didn't catch my meaning. There is a gai who works for an MLB team. He wrote a book. The Book claims that managers suck Ds at creating lineups. OH NOES!!! Who dew we listen toooo?!?!?!

Of course athletes perform at 100% efficiency 100% of the time. Who doesn't know that?

How is this obviously false? Thremp has volumes of research on his side, you have baseless conjecture. If you have sources, please site them.

With his "volumes" of research he also thinks SB ML should be same as regular season ML.

it's obviously false because managers believe it's false, and who are you going to believe, some schmuck in their mother's basement or a guy getting paid low 7 figures to run a baseball team?

What does this guy do?


Thremp has volumes of research that show that hitters hit at the same rate of efficiency regardless of the lineup spot? I'm not aware of any research that shows this - this appears to be merely a key assumption. I'm not making any statement, btw, but rather saying that he doesn't have enough evidence to make such a statement, so it's disingenuous to ask me to prove anything. Note that I'm not talking about protection or anything like that. The difference between any mathematically "optimal" order and what's conventionally used is small enough that even a small effect (are some hitters helped by seeing how the pitcher would approach another hitter? for the first time around, do some hitters hit better if they get to see the pitcher's stuff before? do some batting orders affect the pitcher's ability to execute plans more than others? do some hitters get adversely affected by faster runners capable of stealing? are some hitters prima donnas who will whine about their lineup spots? do some hitters have routines that may be disrupted? do some hitters depend cognitively on how they are approached due to their relative place in the lineup) on batters can completely change the conclusion.

Furthermore. I haven't seen any study that acknowledges that the rate stats are merely aggregates and do not reflect expected rate stats on any given day. In this sense, if hitters are psychologically affected by shifting them around in the lineup - managers appear to try to keep the same hitters in same slots, despite clear understanding of the matchup problems - the static order that maximizes expected runs isn't necessarily the static order that maximizes runs, assuming they're always expected to hit at the same rate.

For instance, the following appears to be an optimal lineup:

OBP/SLG
1 A 440/300
2 B 430/300
3 C 420/300
4 D 410/300
5 E 400/300
6 F 390/300
7 G 380/300
8 H 370/300
9 I 360/300

But assume the batting ability is distributed such that A, C, E, G and I 000/000 at home and B D F H hit 000/000 away.

then you have a home lineup of:

1. 000/000
2. 860/600
3. 000/000
4. 820/600
5. 000/000
6. 780/600
7. 000/000
8. 740/600
9. 000/000

This lineup would average pretty close to 0 runs, because you can semi-intentionally walk the four real batters all game long.

and an away lineup of

1. 880/600
2. 000/000
3. 840/600
4. 000/000
5. 800/600
6. 000/000
7. 760/600
8. 000/000
9. 720/600

This lineup would do a little better, but still, it's a huge liability to have the real batters be interspersed with automatic outs. A much better line up would be ACEGIBDFH, ACBDFHEGI, BDFHACEGI or something along those lines. This is obviously a cartoonish example, but it does illustrate the flaws of thinking in the aggregate and using simulators that use aggregates to criticize real-world decision making. And I didn't even get to the difference between maximizing run-expectation versus maximizing win-expectation. None of this is intended to prove that real baseball managers balance all these factors particularly well, but rather than proposed alternatives that supposedly show how badly things are done in the real world are based on flimsy intellectual foundation.


It's more like the intuition of some guy running a baseball team and the intuition of some guy in his mother's basement. There's no study done either way.

I think he's some sort of statistical analyst for the Mariners.


But their organization sucks. So obv he sucks. And obv the manager sucks. So however he constructs lineups sucks too.

SHIP THE LOGIC BOMBZZZZ

This is just a false and spurious accusation. As you so expertly have shown, there is a fraction of a fraction of a % of difference between the two.

You say this so factually... Are you aware of the total of proprietary knowledge that is conducted by every MLB team? All I have is a guy who works for an MLB team as a statistical analyst claiming what I mentioned earlier.

You have... nothing.

Oh ****, now he's trying to turn this into another baseball batting order thread?

Ok. -235 and -260 is "fraction of a fraction of a % of difference."

May I safely chalk this one up as another of your self-admitted logic errors? Or just reading comprehension issues? Or just plain ignorance? Or possibly all 3?

The idea that you have anything constructively to offer in this regard is, well, quite amusing.