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年才有人达成三冠王 但数据狂热分子却想把桂冠从Cabrera手中夺去
当Cabrera挑战纪录时 ESPN上登出一篇文章讨论"'真'三冠王" 作者是从某个叫
Baseball Think Factory的网站来的 或许是我孤陋寡闻 但这听起来像是个
想太多数据却缺少享受纯粹棒球的乐趣的家伙
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在日前的访问中提到 大很多人都忘了球赛是人在打的 这正是我想对
那些只用数据判断球员的家伙说的话
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正在达成一样比三冠王更少见的壮举-赢得三冠王但WAR落后
文章上写到Mike Trout的WAR远远领先美联
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.
我注意到文章有个我不喜欢WAR的理由 它引用了两种不同版本的WAR
一个是来自BR 另一个来自FG 就我所知 还有其他的版本
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?
打点是确定的 全垒打在哪看都一样 打击率是确定的 这些数据没有版本差异
如果要我们接受新生代的数据 那请问 我们该相信BR的或是FG的
还是其他所谓的"专家" 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.
文章还提到可能有更好的衡量价值的方法 但再看下去要花钱
所以我也不晓得后面说了什么
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:
顺便一提 我可以给这位作家一点英文家教 就像数据狂热分子 我也热中于正确的英文使用
我相信这比什么WAR还是VORP的更为重要 这是我给的小测验:
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错误
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…