How can you guaranty your baseball teams wins the state final?

Nope, just recognize that Men are far better at certain things as Women are far better at certain things.

 

You mean like this?

"According to news reports 13-year-old Keeling Pilaro of Southampton, N.Y, was removed from his Southampton High School's varsity team, where he has played the last two years, because his overwhelming skills were causing “a significant adverse effect on some of his opposing female players," according to Ed Cinelli, the executive director of the area high school association."

http://www.sportsletter.org/sportsl...-hs-field-hockey-team-for-being-too-good.html

 

Not sure how that fits into what you stated about "getting it right". Cides, field hockey's for pussies anyway.

You couldn't fight it off forever.

 

metrics like OPS+ and completion percentage are explicitly not subjective.

one of my hobbies is baseball and sabremetrics. i read voluminously on the subject. it is a mathematical truth, for example, that higher OBP is correlated to team run scoring than batting average. this is an objective truth that is beyond dispute.

i would submit to you that the objective measures of completion percentage and QB rating are very directly representative of actual QB performance, regardless of team wins.

obviously pitcher ERA, and more importantly, WHIP, are better measures of pitching performance than the almost completely irrelevant pitcher W/L.

again, my point here, and the point of most smart people i know who make money analyzing things, is that far too many people use stupid techniques to assess the performances of various things, people or companies or whatever.

for example, i have found that the average working class drunk in queens bars believes that david wright sucks because he isnt "clutch". this is nonsense and is based on flawed logic, like a selective memory and confirmation bias and a weird fan hype effect where some players are arbitrarily liked and others are not. tim tebow was a perfect example, because you defend him even though his play in the league has been magnificently horrendous. you are not using proper techniques to asses his performance.

and so the grander point is that polls and opinion make for a shitty way to decide things. and in particular with presidents the charm of the candidate is judged to be important, when in terms of actual performance it doesnt help much.

i think it speaks to the truth of my point that even red defends tebow, who is all hype and zero performance.

 

But Tebow will get better with coaching. Just give him time. Also Jeff Francoeur 's 2 strike outs a game are miniscule compared to his 1 outfield assist every 7 games.

 

its actually quite comical how often the "he will improve" refrain comes around in articles about those two. there is a sabermetric site that once did a sampling of two weeks worth of francouer articles. he had been completely abysmal (he almost always is) and the site collected like 45 quotes from reporters about the inevitability of improvement. as if it was somehow declared by god that frenchy was good and no amount of constant crippling failure could change his reputation. i think alot of it had to do with how gregarious he was with reporters in the clubhouse.

and tebow, oh man does the "he will only improve" position show up in the media. so what! if i played in the NFL i would improve! the evidence that he is terrible falls on deaf ears because people dont care about jackshit if you smile enough for the cameras.

 

Are you denying that Frenchy is one of the elite outfielders in MLB? He gets more outfield assists then you get pieces of ass. The sabermetric correlation of an outfield assist is incalculable or not valuable. I forget.

 

one day every thread on this board will eventually end with Tebow. Just like the New York Jets playoff hopes.