http://www.murraychass.com/?p=5302
It has taken 45 years for someone to win the Triple Crown of hitting
statistics, and the statistics zealots want to take it away from Miguel
Cabrera. As Cabrera was zeroing in on the rare achievement, ESPN.com had a
column about the “’real’ Triple Crown.” It was written by someone from
something called “Baseball Think Factory.” I may be displaying my ignorance
in not knowing what that is, but it sounds like something where its advocates
could do themselves a favor by not thinking so much and just watch games for
the pure enjoyment of them.
花了45年才有人達成三冠王 但數據狂熱分子卻想把桂冠從Cabrera手中奪去
當Cabrera挑戰紀錄時 ESPN上登出一篇文章討論"'真'三冠王" 作者是從某個叫
Baseball Think Factory的網站來的 或許是我孤陋寡聞 但這聽起來像是個
想太多數據卻缺少享受純粹棒球的樂趣的傢伙
I saw a commercial for an interview with Tony La Russa the other day, and he
was saying that people forget that human beings play the games, a point I
have long made to those who want to judge players strictly with statistics.
Tony La Russa在日前的訪問中提到 大很多人都忘了球賽是人在打的 這正是我想對
那些只用數據判斷球員的傢伙說的話
The ESPN.com column noted that Cabrera was “on the cusp” of doing something
even rarer than winning the Triple Crown, and that was winning the Triple
Crown without leading the league in wins above replacement,” a.k.a. WAR.
Mike Trout, the column noted, was “significantly ahead of everyone in the
A.L.” in WAR.
ESPn的文章指出Cabrera正在達成一樣比三冠王更少見的壯舉-贏得三冠王但WAR落後
文章上寫到Mike Trout的WAR遠遠領先美聯
Without getting into details, I note that the column inadvertently states one
of the reasons I have no use for WAR. It cites two different versions of WAR,
one computed by Baseball-Reference, another by FanGraphs. For all I know,
there are still others.
我注意到文章有個我不喜歡WAR的理由 它引用了兩種不同版本的WAR
一個是來自BR 另一個來自FG 就我所知 還有其他的版本
Runs batted in are absolute. Home runs are the same wherever you look.
Batting average is based on hits and at-bats. None of those statistics have
different versions. If we accept new-age statistics, whom do we consult and
trust, Baseball-Reference or FanGraphs or some other self-professed expert,
Bill James perhaps?
打點是確定的 全壘打在哪看都一樣 打擊率是確定的 這些數據沒有版本差異
如果要我們接受新生代的數據 那請問 我們該相信BR的或是FG的
還是其他所謂的"專家" 像是Bill James?
This column goes further, suggesting there might be a better way of
determining players’ relative value, but I didn’t learn what it is because
reading more of the column would have required payment, and that’s not going
to happen.
文章還提到可能有更好的衡量價值的方法 但再看下去要花錢
所以我也不曉得後面說了什麼
On the other hand, I would like to offer at no cost a little English quiz to
the column’s writer and his editors. Like the statistics advocates I call
zealots, I am zealous about the correct use of the English language. I
believe that is far more important than WAR and VORP. So this is my quiz:
順便一提 我可以給這位作家一點英文家教 就像數據狂熱分子 我也熱中於正確的英文使用
我相信這比什麼WAR還是VORP的更為重要 這是我給的小測驗:
In ESPN.com’s Triple Crown column, find the grammatical errors in these
sentences or phrases:
找出以下文句的文法錯誤
Cabrera would only be the second Triple Crown winner…
The Tigers just have nine games left in the season…
their is another trio of traditional stats that does a much better job of
defining overall player value.
Cabrera would only be the fourth…