You're probably the greatest debater I've ever seen on a message board. You vs. junc was a mismatch heavy in your favor in this regard, and you ultimately displayed the his warts when you displayed him using the same points over and over again responding to every post you made. I've actually learned a lot watching this unfold.
It's a waste of your time b/c your point of view has been obliterated. I showed you what he's done overall in postseason as a Yankee, i showed you what he's done w/ RISP in postseason, I showed you his coe and late the past 3 years and all of the #s support my argument no matter how many times you insult me. So move along and try to get one over on someone else b/c that doesn't work w/ me. I didn't post my #s as early as I should have but I don't have as much tim to look them up as I did in the past. I did post them, it was late and enough to easily win this argument. All he was posting was 7th inning and beyond though and you didn't mention that. When he was posting the same #s over and overit was ok? even though they didn't prove anything? but I mentioned things over and over again(which turned out to be true) and my info was a problem? How exactly is this heavily in his favor when I showed how he has stunk close and late and showed how he stunk in october? That was the entire point of the debate. The debate was about ARod being clutch, I showed w/o question ARod has not been clutch so how does he win?
I like how you posted a point(a misinformed one as usual) then got that point torn apart and didn't respond w/ another point but w/ a another attack on me. Typical.
Random question junc... Is your keyboard broken or do you just type fast and not proofread? I'm seriously not trying to be a jerk or anything, I'm just curious, and I vaguely recall someone having keyboard problems, but I'm not sure if it was you.
You never addressed the point of there being an extremely small sample size of data to be considered in this situation. I think the deception of numbers widely exists in this media world that we live in today. We're constantly being swept into tornadoes composed of other people's judgments that we just don't stop to consider the reality. Everyone is trying to label someone as something...Kobe as the next Jordan, Crosby as the next Gretzky, etc. So once that is out there, it becomes difficult to measure a player against the game he's playing, and not ghosts. That's one example of how media affects out way of seeing the game, and there are many more that encompass the exact grounds of this little spat. As you know, I was hotly angry and Alex after last year's postseason, but the farthest I will go is to say that he's had an absolutely dreadful output as a Yankee in postseason and has possibly costs us games and series'. Cappy isn't exactly contending this point. The point being made that this can't be used as evidence to label Alex as a naturally "unclutch" player, and it looks to be impossible to make a determinant statement beyond that with the data available
Judging from your posts, you don't even seem to know what my point of view is, so you'll forgive me if I have a hard time believing that you could obliterate it.
Anyone got the stats for arguments Nyjunc has lost? Give the brother some respect, have you seen what he's done in the Countdown to Opening Day thread?
I'm nominating the "I Must Respond" thread for Thread of the Year for 2007. Classic stuff. Who cares how many he's "won" or lost? It's always fun to watch, and sometimes even a lot of fun to participate in! Seriously, I can honestly say that without junc, this forum would be a very different (and not necessarily better) place. Oh, and yeah junc, you lost this one. Cappy is pretty spot on all across the board with this argument.
^^ I agree all around. Although, if you parse this closely, I think what the real problem is is that their is no universally agreed upon definition of what is and isn't "clutch." So Cappy's stats don't properly weight the postseason according to Junc, and Junc is highly overweighting the small postseason sample according to Cappy. I really don't think this is an argument that can be "won" until you agree on what is and isn't clutch.
Thats capricious. Who won all depends on how an arbitrator would weight the relative merits and weightness of the statistics.
Okay, I'm arbitrating and relating the merit of the statistics posted by Cappy to be the superior points in the argument. :wink:
I agree that it can't be decided without a more universal definition of what is clutch. Of course, one of the main points of my argument from the beginning has been that there really is no such thing as "clutchness" in terms of predictive ability. It's more commonly used a label that can be ascribed to actions after the fact, and is often done so in a highly subjective manner. In fact, I think it was a statement very similar to the previous sentence that kicked this whole thing off. Ask any scientist or statistician, though... any concept or theory that lacks predictive ability is essentially worthless in terms of real world value. Due to the very nature of the concept of clutch performance, the subjectivity with which it is expected to be analyzed will often lead to biases, which lead to misinterpretations and exaggerations of actual ability based on subjectively analyzed performance (which, yes, often come in small data sets). And this all flows into the positive feedback monster that pours its findings into our highly subjective and unscientific mental/emotional associations (which disproportionately weight information favorably if it agrees with a position that is already held). This, in turn, combined with a lack of solid understanding of statistics, leads to people ranking Scott Brosius as a more valuable player on a baseball team than Alex Rodriguez because of some perceived inherent ability in Brosius to "come through in the clutch." This is the best I can do to sum up the argument: Although no one would deny that Scott Brosius HAS "come through in the clutch" for the Yankees more often than A-Rod has... it is illogical to then conclude that the determining factor behind this disparity in performance is some inner quality that prevents A-Rod from performing in these situations, or that boosts Brosius's performance... and that this factor then makes Brosius a more desirable player to have on the team. It is illogical for many reasons, including limited sample size, a seeming misunderstanding about the nature of statistics, selective use of statistics, comparative evidence that points against the existence of this disparity in the alleged inner quality, improper weighting of one individual's "clutch performance" to determining team outcomes, etc. There are dozens of reasons why it's illogical. I couldn't even begin to name them all without seriously neglecting my studies. (But if you tempt me, I might give it a shot. :smile: )
I can't tell if you're kidding or not. In case you aren't, I'd say it's a pretty fundamental difference.
by the way, they both lost here. Anyone who spends that much time debating the clutchness of A-Rod... *shade* we can talk about how he clutches with Jeter, though */shade*
My sense of humor is fine. It's just hard to pick up sometimes without the tone of voice. Sorry. (Besides, I'm a sabr-n00b compared to most of those guys. I might understand the meaning and impact of VORP and EqA, but I don't go around coming up with my own equations... I just go with what they've got.)
