Grote, it was not meant towards you. But if name calling comments are meant towards you,so be it, because you have no problem using them on me. But if I called you a name in the past, you are welcome to return one
Winpitcher, negative comment by me. Not needed.
However, DrJ called me a lunatic before I brougth up the first grade level comment. I don't see anything flattering about being called a lunatic! Where were you when he said that? Were just happy that a guy agreed wtih you probably.
Before that guy edits it, it was at 2:30 PM on Sept 15th, I followed up at 6:08 PM calling his first grade level work.
I am not going back through all of that. What I know is that my tone was not insulting towards him before he called me a lunatic. Words sometimes are read different than what they are meant for.
But nonetheless, I stick by my assessment of him.
You may stick by your blowhard assessment,I get wild sometimes(edited)
Guess this post has gotten everone rather testy at this point, LOL...
I fugured you weren't referring to me, Hoopster. I try to stay out of the bickering, but opinions can get heated here at times...no harm, no foul.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Winpitcher, for the love of god, if Dallas misquoted himself(by your reckoning), while in the midst of debating one of the biggest nitwits this board has seen, leave it be...especially since he has already clarified what he was saying...no need to nag!
Aro13, no I don't have those totals you request. It would take some calculations to achieve them...time I prefer not to spend seeing the audience(not you by any stretch).
But I am glad you brought it up. Yes, Howard has been abysmal in Late/Close situations. Worse than abysmal! Forget all the MVP criteria herin mentioned, but how anybody would want a player as an MVP who can so easily be neutralized in a late/close situation is a head scratcher! Like I said earlier, he is a left handed relief pitcher away from being Mario Mendoza with Shawon Dunston's power. >>
The fact that Howard has been abyssmal in late/close situations is only meaningful, though, if that information has some predictive value. In other words, is there something 'about' Howard that makes him less likely to produce in these situations then another player with identical statistics. I don't tend to go in for the argument that anyone is a choker, since that designation is almost always assigned after the fact, so I think you have to demonstrate that there is statistical evidence to suggest that performance in 'pressure' situations that is below one's expected performance is correlated from one time period to another before this aspect of Howard's 2008 campaign can be used against his case for the MVP.
Boo, I think it is very meaningful in determining what a player actually contributed to wins for his team. Even if it isn't predictive of future value, it paints a clear story of how many wins a player contributed.
But strategy wise, yes! Being that he is marginalized by bringing in a lefty, it has strong merit. A manager can leverage his chances of winning by doing so in a key point in the game. It is during these high leverage points in the game where Wins or Losses are most often determined. There are leverage points in the first inning(not advisable to bring in a lefty), and there are the highest in late/close situations where there is a strong and easy action to leverage the chances of winning.
That strong action is bring in a lefty to face Howard. He is a bad hitter against lefties.
<< <i>No you didn't say 'always' you said 'usually' >>
Exactly
<< <i>Dallas I found this interesting.
On page one you stated:
"Although if Berkman can continue to carry the Astros as he has been doing all the way to a playoff spot, then he should win it easily"
Then later in this discussion when Grote mentioned something similar you stated:
?grote - you're going to have to explain why making it to the playoffs matters"
I have quoted you word for word and in context.
Steve >>
And whenever you do quote me word for word there will never be any misunderstanding.
And there is no misstatement or contradiction here. I still stand by both posts (although it appears to be moot as the 'Stros fold.)
1. Berkman is better than Howard, whether or not his team makes the playoffs 2. Howard IS (nothing to do with OUGHT) likely to win the MVP if the Phillies make the playoffs 3. Berkman, if he carries his team to the playoffs, IS (nothing to do with OUGHT) then himself more likely to win it than Howard 4. The conversation about Berkman possibly winning the MVP, whether he ought to or not having not entered the discussion, being over I addressed grote 5. My question to grote was WHY does making the playoffs matter 6. I never said, or thought, that making the playoffs DIDN'T matter - that is undeniable fact, and was the basis for my comments about Berkman
Clear?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
5. My question to grote was WHY does making the playoffs matter 6. I never said, or thought, that making the playoffs DIDN'T matter - that is undeniable fact, and was the basis for my comments about Berkman
I'd agree that making the playoffs does matter as you also imply with your statement in #6. For me, personally, that achievement ought to have significant bearing on the MVP voting as making the postseason is generally the measuring stick by which a team will determine if a season is successful or not (with some exceptions, of course, specifically much younger or smaller market teams). So if I am going to vote for a "Most Valuable Player" I'd be more comfortable laying that title on a player who was a primary factor behind a team's drive to making the playoffs, especially since unlike years past when one or two teams in each league qualified for the postseason, we have an expanded playoff format by which you don't even need to win your measly four-team division to make the playoffs thanks to the beauty of the wildcard. I would never suggest that the MVP is the league's best or most outstanding player, and perhaps that is one of the inherent problems with the MVP award itself.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Another great night fot the Phils. 6th straight win.
Howard... Key "High Leverage" first RBI of the game, and an additional run.
Totals.. 137 RBI, 96 R
Pujols box score. 0-4. 7th straight Cardinals loss. I wonder if Hoopster will now have a paradigm shift. If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time.
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"But nobody who analyzes statistics for a living, or even does it seriously, uses single-year park factors."
Steve, the sample size is of paramount importance in statistical research , it reflects a resultant based on exactly the extent of the data.
When evaluating a single year, the data pool should be from that specific single year. If your want the results of a particular effect from June 1st through June 15th 1971, the data should come from within those specific parameters. NOT from a 5 year or 50 year inclusive data pool. The 1971 season data is reflective the 1971 results.
Park factors are probably a bit over valued by many, Jim Rice hit better in his road games at Yankee Stadium, than at home, we might be guilty of overvaluing the 8 time all star, if we placed too much emphasis on his ability to hit well in a park, generally considered not helpful to RH.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
The use of one year park factors could be flawed, because it may be skewed by the quality of pitchers that happened to have their turns at that park, as compared to on the road. This may even out over the course of a season, but it also may not. Over the three years, it should even out.
Or, it could be attributed to a couple players just happening to have their hot or cold streaks while at that park. THat too should even out over the three years.
If the structure of the park didn't change, then what else could affect the park factor?
The one thing that could lend credence to the use of one year park factors is weather...with wind being the primary culprit.
Wind was not as large a factor as the North Side counterpart in Wrigley. If weather is to blame for making it a pitchers park in 1971, then what happened to Wrigley in '71?
Wrigley Field park factors were 111 in 1970, 113 in 1971, and 110 in 1972.
Wrigley saw the opposite. It actually had 1971 as the highest of the sandwich years, lending support that weather was probably not a big factor(unless it was only cold and windy on Sox home games which is somewhat possible, but looking at the prevailing data, probably not.
When looking at 1971, I would probably use the three year, and then take it down a tick to account for the '71 data(since '71 is the year in question being looked at).
Would you suggest that When looking at the 2008 MVP award, a 3 season performance pool of data, should be used in the choice ? I ask because you seem to suggest using a specific year's data for a specific year's resultant is flawed.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
<< <i>Steve, the sample size is of paramount importance in statistical research , it reflects a resultant based on exactly the extent of the data.
When evaluating a single year, the data pool should be from that specific single year. >>
Those two statements contradict each other. You realize that, right? The first statement is absolutely correct - too small a sample size, like 81 home games, can give you meaningless results.
And we're not evaluating a single year, we're evaluating a single park which was unchanged for several years.
Three year averages are the generally accepted method; Bill James uses five year weighted averages; somebody else might do something else. All of these measures are more statistically valid than the one year.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I claim Bill Melton Melton led the AL in HRs for the 1971 season, only that year, not for 1975, nor for 1970 through 1973.
I also claim for 1971 ( not 1970-1973, nor 1950-1990, nor any other range of seasons) BB Ref.com, calculates that Comiskey Park, Melton's home park. was NOT a hitter's park.
I would also go out on limb, so to speak, and claim that there are over a dozen times the HR and/or RBI leader for any one particular, specific season, played one half the season at home, in a neutral or pitcher's park.
I also claim I cant really understand why some find it so difficult to admit an error, I was wrong in guessing Comiskey was a pitcher's park in 1972, looked it up and found that for that one specific season, it was slightly, a hitter's park. I shall suffer everlasting shame, no doubt.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I'm not going so far as to say you're making an "error", and I know I'm not, so I don't know who it is you are thinking is supposed to admit one. Park factors, as I said, are calculated several different ways by several different people/organizations. b-r.com shows you both the single and multi year factors so you are free to do with them what you please, but when they actually USE park factors they, like everyone else, use the multi-year ones since they are more statistically valid and therefore can be expected to be more accurate.
Single year factors for Comiskey swung wildly from 1970 to 1971 to 1972. I don't know what caused that, you don't know what caused that, and as far as I know nobody knows what caused that. The one thing I do know is that the park itself did not change over that period, and that the statement that Comiskey was a hitter's park in 1970 and 1972 but a pitcher's park in 1971 has nothing to support it but a single statistic of questionable validity. You are of course free to draw your own conclusions from that single statistic, but then I would think that when presented with arguments that depend on multiple statistics of greater validity you would not be so quick to dismiss them, and that you would be the last person to say that rejecting one person's conclusions based on a single statistic is an error.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others? >>
Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head.
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others? >>
Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head. >>
You talk like you are winning this debate; interesting perspective.
<< <i>Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head. >>
I already admitted it, your presence and constant idiocy - not to mention the indignation I feel as an actuary that someone in this thread might actually believe that you know more math than my dog - has resulted in my posting some value-less things. I trust that everyone understands that these posts are therapeutic for me; I would gladly accept a kick to the head or fork over cash money if it meant that you would go away forever. You are that annoying, and the only thing in the entire world that annoys me this much is stupid people. But if you are as concerned as you sound with my reputation, perhaps the right thing for you to do would be to just go away on your own.
jaxxr, on the other hand, is not stupid - he is stubborn. And I can respect that. I said it, and I meant it, you are not wrong about the one-year park factor. There is no single right or wrong answer in that regard. I don't agree with your interpretation, and people like Bill James who have forgotten more about baseball stats than you and I together will ever know don't agree with your interpretation, but in the end we are just talking about interpretations. So I'm going to call this issue a dead horse, at least for now, and stop kicking it.
WP - there was, maybe still is, a Player of the Year Award; I believe the Sporting News gave (gives?) it out to a player in each league, along with a Pitcher of the Year. My recollection is that the Player Award tracked the MVP pretty closely, but when it didn't TSN winners were generally better players than the MVPs. TSN's Pitcher of the Year tracked Cy Young less well, and was more likely to go to the best pitcher.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You mean all this time I could have just made up a statistic and I didn't even have to define it? I take back everything I said; I am in awe of your superior analytical skill. I will try this at the office tomorrow; I can already feel the admiration of my fellow actuaries.
hoopster, you're a lunatic. This man is a freaking genius.
Now, let's take another look at this whole thing. Howard, as it turns out, has over 100 more comprehensive batter bases than Pujols, and his lead in extra runs incorporated is so big I can't even measure it! I feel like such a fool for not realizing this until now, but never let it be said that I can't admit a mistake. Ryan Howard for MVP!
Dr. J., if you can ever find the time, please let me know if you would be willing to give a little training session to our group. This could revolutionize our pratice, and indeed the entire disciplines of statistics and mathematics. I smell a Fields Medal for somebody!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"Webgem" and "Ryan Howard" is a strange combination. But, I guess fielding a semi-challenging grounder (i.e. one he has to move his feet to get to) without booting it is considered a "Ryan Howard Webgem"
For the love of god, Dallas and I were arguing the point already conceding the MVP to Ryan Howard. We assumed he would win it when we first started!! It is from that point we were saying he SHOULDN'T win it. So why on earth do you think posting what he does everyday somehow adds something? DrJ, can you understand this, or is your tie too tight...if you even do have an adult job like you say.
The only thing it shows is that if he had hit like that all season and actually had an OB% around .400 and a SLG% around .620, then we wouldn't even have this discussion, as then he would have merited the MVP on his own accord, and not because he has excellent teammates and a great bullpen!
<< <i>For the love of god, Dallas and I were arguing the point already conceding the MVP to Ryan Howard. We assumed he would win it when we first started!! It is from that point we were saying he SHOULDN'T win it. So why on earth do you think posting what he does everyday somehow adds something? DrJ, can you understand this, or is your tie too tight...if you even do have an adult job like you say.
The only thing it shows is that if he had hit like that all season and actually had an OB% around .400 and a SLG% around .620, then we wouldn't even have this discussion, as then he would have merited the MVP on his own accord, and not because he has excellent teammates and a great bullpen! >>
Did Hoopster just call the Phillies bullpen "great"?
<< <i>You mean all this time I could have just made up a statistic and I didn't even have to define it?
Actually that 'stat' has been around for a while. I think it was once used in the free agent formula.
The one used to determine what class of free agent a player was.
No sure if they use it any longer.
If I am not mistaken it was RBI +RS - HR= RR
Steve >>
Nice try, but no, Dr. J. made that one up all by himself. And how dare you try to impugn the stochastic genius that is Dr. J.
I propose that, once Dr. J. shares with us the true meaning of his new stat (I've got goosebumps, anyone else?), that from then on we refer to them not as "runs realized" but as "Dr. J.'s". We simply MUST memorialize for posterity the intellectual greatness that walks among us now. I can hear my great grandson now: "Sure, your guy gets on base more, has more power and fields better, but my guy has more Dr. J's". That'll shut up his stupid friends.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The only thing it shows is that if he had hit like that all season and actually had an OB% around .400 and a SLG% around .620, then we wouldn't even have this discussion, as then he would have merited the MVP on his own accord, and not because he has excellent teammates and a great bullpen!
Skip again I disagree even if he had hit like this all season it still would have been because of his teammates.
He has to drive someone in. Unless of course every RBI he had was due to a solo HR.
You can't have it both ways. You can argue his influence only.
Wright, like Howard, has picked it up in the second half, hitting .318 with 14 homers and 44 RBI after the break, compared to a .276, 17, 53 stat line for the Phillie. In the September stats, Howard really separates himself, though, with the aforementioned .393 BA, 8 HR and 23 RBI. Wright has been good, but not great, with a .304, 4, 11 line. Howard's slugging percentage in September is an absurd .964 and his Phillies have rallied around him to overtake the Mets and Brewers in the playoff positioning. With that said, Wright has been a consistently productive and steadying force on the Mets all year and has been certainly their best player.
High leverage is more to do w/ the score of the game at the time, and its chances on producing a win....rather than the month. A win is a win, whether it is in April or September.
Howard's hitting has been MVP like lately...not because of the RBI total, but because of HIS hitting contribution. Had he hit even a little under All Star level the first half, then he would have merited the MVP based on his contributions(rather than basing it on the RBI totals).
If Howard put a hole in the Hoover dam in April, and then fixed it in grand fashion in September...would you hail him as a hero? No.
His hot hitting of late is only rescuing the damage he did early on with his poor hitting. It needs to be looked at in totality, not just most recent.
That isn't the same as high/low leverage. Low leverage is hitting a HR in the 8th inning down by 7 runs. Yes, credit is given for high leverage hits in the first inning.
<< <i>I was simply implying that September, in the middle of a pennant race IMO is high leverage. >>
If Howard was better than every other player in the NL from April through August, the Phillies would be be far enough ahead that it wouldn't be as much of a pennant race
<< <i>I was simply implying that September, in the middle of a pennant race IMO is high leverage. >>
If Howard was better than every other player in the NL from April through August, the Phillies would be be far enough ahead that it wouldn't be as much of a pennant race >>
But you're forgetting the second part of it-- if Howard had been that good from April to August, and the Phils were far ahead in the divisional race, the very same people touting him for MVP right now would actually think less of his '08 campaign because 'he isn't performing in the heat of a pennant race'.
"After reading this thread I am convinced that the Pirates made a good deal by keeping Kip Wells over Ryan Howard." -------------------------------------
LOL
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Comments
Steve
Steve
Winpitcher, negative comment by me. Not needed.
However, DrJ called me a lunatic before I brougth up the first grade level comment. I don't see anything flattering about being called a lunatic! Where were you when he said that? Were just happy that a guy agreed wtih you probably.
Before that guy edits it, it was at 2:30 PM on Sept 15th, I followed up at 6:08 PM calling his first grade level work.
He only began calling you a lunatic when you started acting like one.
Go back and re read the thread and you will see.
Steve
But nonetheless, I stick by my assessment of him.
You may stick by your blowhard assessment,I get wild sometimes(edited)
You could have simply 'clarified' yourself in the very next post, instead you continued to pound away.
Yes I too am a blowhard.
And as for what I add here that sir is your opinion. Or do you have some sort of stat to back it up?
I will say this though Skip you did enlighten me during this thread.
You should though leave the arrogance at home.
Anyways what has been said has been said.
Steve
Maybe we are both blowards, so be it. I erased my negative comments in the RBI Myth thread.
lol
I think we are. lol
Steve
I fugured you weren't referring to me, Hoopster. I try to stay out of the bickering, but opinions can get heated here at times...no harm, no foul.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Winpitcher, for the love of god, if Dallas misquoted himself(by your reckoning), while in the midst of debating one of the biggest nitwits this board has seen, leave it be...especially since he has already clarified what he was saying...no need to nag!
Aro13, no I don't have those totals you request. It would take some calculations to achieve them...time I prefer not to spend seeing the audience(not you by any stretch).
But I am glad you brought it up. Yes, Howard has been abysmal in Late/Close situations. Worse than abysmal! Forget all the MVP criteria herin mentioned, but how anybody would want a player as an MVP who can so easily be neutralized in a late/close situation is a head scratcher! Like I said earlier, he is a left handed relief pitcher away from being Mario Mendoza with Shawon Dunston's power. >>
The fact that Howard has been abyssmal in late/close situations is only meaningful, though, if that information has some predictive value. In other words, is there something 'about' Howard that makes him less likely to produce in these situations then another player with identical statistics. I don't tend to go in for the argument that anyone is a choker, since that designation is almost always assigned after the fact, so I think you have to demonstrate that there is statistical evidence to suggest that performance in 'pressure' situations that is below one's expected performance is correlated from one time period to another before this aspect of Howard's 2008 campaign can be used against his case for the MVP.
I could unerstand you and Winpitcher gettng testy though(with the Mets play of late).
But strategy wise, yes! Being that he is marginalized by bringing in a lefty, it has strong merit. A manager can leverage his chances of winning by doing so in a key point in the game. It is during these high leverage points in the game where Wins or Losses are most often determined. There are leverage points in the first inning(not advisable to bring in a lefty), and there are the highest in late/close situations where there is a strong and easy action to leverage the chances of winning.
That strong action is bring in a lefty to face Howard. He is a bad hitter against lefties.
<< <i>No you didn't say 'always' you said 'usually' >>
Exactly
<< <i>Dallas I found this interesting.
On page one you stated:
"Although if Berkman can continue to carry the Astros as he has been doing all the way to a playoff spot, then he should win it easily"
Then later in this discussion when Grote mentioned something similar you stated:
?grote - you're going to have to explain why making it to the playoffs matters"
I have quoted you word for word and in context.
Steve >>
And whenever you do quote me word for word there will never be any misunderstanding.
And there is no misstatement or contradiction here. I still stand by both posts (although it appears to be moot as the 'Stros fold.)
1. Berkman is better than Howard, whether or not his team makes the playoffs
2. Howard IS (nothing to do with OUGHT) likely to win the MVP if the Phillies make the playoffs
3. Berkman, if he carries his team to the playoffs, IS (nothing to do with OUGHT) then himself more likely to win it than Howard
4. The conversation about Berkman possibly winning the MVP, whether he ought to or not having not entered the discussion, being over I addressed grote
5. My question to grote was WHY does making the playoffs matter
6. I never said, or thought, that making the playoffs DIDN'T matter - that is undeniable fact, and was the basis for my comments about Berkman
Clear?
6. I never said, or thought, that making the playoffs DIDN'T matter - that is undeniable fact, and was the basis for my comments about Berkman
I'd agree that making the playoffs does matter as you also imply with your statement in #6. For me, personally, that achievement ought to have significant bearing on the MVP voting as making the postseason is generally the measuring stick by which a team will determine if a season is successful or not (with some exceptions, of course, specifically much younger or smaller market teams). So if I am going to vote for a "Most Valuable Player" I'd be more comfortable laying that title on a player who was a primary factor behind a team's drive to making the playoffs, especially since unlike years past when one or two teams in each league qualified for the postseason, we have an expanded playoff format by which you don't even need to win your measly four-team division to make the playoffs thanks to the beauty of the wildcard. I would never suggest that the MVP is the league's best or most outstanding player, and perhaps that is one of the inherent problems with the MVP award itself.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Howard... Key "High Leverage" first RBI of the game, and an additional run.
Totals.. 137 RBI, 96 R
Pujols box score. 0-4. 7th straight Cardinals loss. I wonder if Hoopster will now have a paradigm shift. If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time.
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others?
Sorry, no
Steve
Short answer NO he does not, however, his post is about what I would say.
You can say he hit the nail on the head.
Also, didn't they used to have a 'Player of the Year award" too?
That was the award that was given, (or attempted) to be given to the 'best' player, not the most 'valuable'
Many times two different players would win these awards.
Steve
Steve, the sample size is of paramount importance in statistical research , it reflects a resultant based on exactly the extent of the data.
When evaluating a single year, the data pool should be from that specific single year. If your want the results of a particular effect from June 1st through June 15th 1971, the data should come from within those specific parameters. NOT from a 5 year or 50 year inclusive data pool. The 1971 season data is reflective the 1971 results.
Park factors are probably a bit over valued by many, Jim Rice hit better in his road games at Yankee Stadium, than at home, we might be guilty of overvaluing the 8 time all star, if we placed too much emphasis on his ability to hit well in a park, generally considered not helpful to RH.
Or, it could be attributed to a couple players just happening to have their hot or cold streaks while at that park. THat too should even out over the three years.
If the structure of the park didn't change, then what else could affect the park factor?
The one thing that could lend credence to the use of one year park factors is weather...with wind being the primary culprit.
Wind was not as large a factor as the North Side counterpart in Wrigley. If weather is to blame for making it a pitchers park in 1971, then what happened to Wrigley in '71?
Wrigley Field park factors were 111 in 1970, 113 in 1971, and 110 in 1972.
Wrigley saw the opposite. It actually had 1971 as the highest of the sandwich years, lending support that weather was probably not a big factor(unless it was only cold and windy on Sox home games
When looking at 1971, I would probably use the three year, and then take it down a tick to account for the '71 data(since '71 is the year in question being looked at).
Would you suggest that When looking at the 2008 MVP award, a 3 season performance pool of data, should be used in the choice ?
I ask because you seem to suggest using a specific year's data for a specific year's resultant is flawed.
<< <i>Steve, the sample size is of paramount importance in statistical research , it reflects a resultant based on exactly the extent of the data.
When evaluating a single year, the data pool should be from that specific single year. >>
Those two statements contradict each other. You realize that, right? The first statement is absolutely correct - too small a sample size, like 81 home games, can give you meaningless results.
And we're not evaluating a single year, we're evaluating a single park which was unchanged for several years.
Three year averages are the generally accepted method; Bill James uses five year weighted averages; somebody else might do something else. All of these measures are more statistically valid than the one year.
Perhaps you are not, I certainly am.
I claim Bill Melton Melton led the AL in HRs for the 1971 season, only that year, not for 1975, nor for 1970 through 1973.
I also claim for 1971 ( not 1970-1973, nor 1950-1990, nor any other range of seasons) BB Ref.com, calculates that Comiskey Park, Melton's home park. was NOT a hitter's park.
I would also go out on limb, so to speak, and claim that there are over a dozen times the HR and/or RBI leader for any one particular, specific season, played one half the season at home, in a neutral or pitcher's park.
I also claim I cant really understand why some find it so difficult to admit an error, I was wrong in guessing Comiskey was a pitcher's park in 1972, looked it up and found that for that one specific season, it was slightly, a hitter's park. I shall suffer everlasting shame, no doubt.
I'm not going so far as to say you're making an "error", and I know I'm not, so I don't know who it is you are thinking is supposed to admit one. Park factors, as I said, are calculated several different ways by several different people/organizations. b-r.com shows you both the single and multi year factors so you are free to do with them what you please, but when they actually USE park factors they, like everyone else, use the multi-year ones since they are more statistically valid and therefore can be expected to be more accurate.
Single year factors for Comiskey swung wildly from 1970 to 1971 to 1972. I don't know what caused that, you don't know what caused that, and as far as I know nobody knows what caused that. The one thing I do know is that the park itself did not change over that period, and that the statement that Comiskey was a hitter's park in 1970 and 1972 but a pitcher's park in 1971 has nothing to support it but a single statistic of questionable validity. You are of course free to draw your own conclusions from that single statistic, but then I would think that when presented with arguments that depend on multiple statistics of greater validity you would not be so quick to dismiss them, and that you would be the last person to say that rejecting one person's conclusions based on a single statistic is an error.
in my guess that the 1972 seasonal stats would show Comiskey was a pitcher's park.
I'll say only God is correct always, and only those with overly large egos think they are always correct.
I'll say my mediocre comprehension skills allow me me to see that in 1971 it was, IN FACT, a pitcher's park.
I'll say all the debate in the universe will not change the FACTS, including those of 1971, in regard to a park rate.
I'll say there are are many HR and/or RBI leaders who played their home games in a pitcher's or neutral park.
<< <i>
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others? >>
Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If all the OPS numbers are accumulated during non high leverage games in the beginning of the season, how can it be an indicator of full season actual performance if a player repeatedly comes up short in crunch time. >>
Do you read your own posts? CAN you read your own posts?
In what parallel dimension are the Cardinals games being played in "crunch time"? Their season is over if you haven't noticed. In what parallel universe do wins in the first half of the season count for less than wins in the second half? How is a win in May a "non high leverage" win? What on Earth is a non high leverage game, anyway? Why would any person in the English speaking world say "non high"?
I admit it, your stupidity has gotten under my skin, and the worst part is that you don't even have to try to annoy me, you just have to exist. My sanity is in your hands; in the name of all that is holy, please by a dictionary and a statistics text book and read them before it's too late for me.
edit to add: thanks, grote, that actually cleared things up for me more than the prior three days of debate. I still disagree, of course, but I get what you're saying now. Does grote speak for others? >>
Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head. >>
You talk like you are winning this debate; interesting perspective.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>Once again you add no value or original thoughts to the thread. I would suggest you move on since you are clearly out of your league. Your reputation is quickly sinking. Bail out before you are totally over your head. >>
I already admitted it, your presence and constant idiocy - not to mention the indignation I feel as an actuary that someone in this thread might actually believe that you know more math than my dog - has resulted in my posting some value-less things. I trust that everyone understands that these posts are therapeutic for me; I would gladly accept a kick to the head or fork over cash money if it meant that you would go away forever. You are that annoying, and the only thing in the entire world that annoys me this much is stupid people. But if you are as concerned as you sound with my reputation, perhaps the right thing for you to do would be to just go away on your own.
jaxxr, on the other hand, is not stupid - he is stubborn. And I can respect that. I said it, and I meant it, you are not wrong about the one-year park factor. There is no single right or wrong answer in that regard. I don't agree with your interpretation, and people like Bill James who have forgotten more about baseball stats than you and I together will ever know don't agree with your interpretation, but in the end we are just talking about interpretations. So I'm going to call this issue a dead horse, at least for now, and stop kicking it.
WP - there was, maybe still is, a Player of the Year Award; I believe the Sporting News gave (gives?) it out to a player in each league, along with a Pitcher of the Year. My recollection is that the Player Award tracked the MVP pretty closely, but when it didn't TSN winners were generally better players than the MVPs. TSN's Pitcher of the Year tracked Cy Young less well, and was more likely to go to the best pitcher.
RBI 138
Run 97
And a beautiful web gem to save a hit.
Howard is getting it done in all phases of the game, leading his team to the playoffs and the league in runs realized.
<< <i>leading ... the league in runs realized. >>
You mean all this time I could have just made up a statistic and I didn't even have to define it? I take back everything I said; I am in awe of your superior analytical skill. I will try this at the office tomorrow; I can already feel the admiration of my fellow actuaries.
hoopster, you're a lunatic. This man is a freaking genius.
Now, let's take another look at this whole thing. Howard, as it turns out, has over 100 more comprehensive batter bases than Pujols, and his lead in extra runs incorporated is so big I can't even measure it! I feel like such a fool for not realizing this until now, but never let it be said that I can't admit a mistake. Ryan Howard for MVP!
Dr. J., if you can ever find the time, please let me know if you would be willing to give a little training session to our group. This could revolutionize our pratice, and indeed the entire disciplines of statistics and mathematics. I smell a Fields Medal for somebody!
<< <i>
And a beautiful web gem to save a hit.
>>
"Webgem" and "Ryan Howard" is a strange combination. But, I guess fielding a semi-challenging grounder (i.e. one he has to move his feet to get to) without booting it is considered a "Ryan Howard Webgem"
Steve
You mean all this time I could have just made up a statistic and I didn't even have to define it?
Actually that 'stat' has been around for a while. I think it was once used in the free agent formula.
The one used to determine what class of free agent a player was.
No sure if they use it any longer.
If I am not mistaken it was RBI +RS - HR= RR
Steve
The only thing it shows is that if he had hit like that all season and actually had an OB% around .400 and a SLG% around .620, then we wouldn't even have this discussion, as then he would have merited the MVP on his own accord, and not because he has excellent teammates and a great bullpen!
<< <i>For the love of god, Dallas and I were arguing the point already conceding the MVP to Ryan Howard. We assumed he would win it when we first started!! It is from that point we were saying he SHOULDN'T win it. So why on earth do you think posting what he does everyday somehow adds something? DrJ, can you understand this, or is your tie too tight...if you even do have an adult job like you say.
The only thing it shows is that if he had hit like that all season and actually had an OB% around .400 and a SLG% around .620, then we wouldn't even have this discussion, as then he would have merited the MVP on his own accord, and not because he has excellent teammates and a great bullpen! >>
Did Hoopster just call the Phillies bullpen "great"?
oooook
BTW Mazeroski RULED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>You mean all this time I could have just made up a statistic and I didn't even have to define it?
Actually that 'stat' has been around for a while. I think it was once used in the free agent formula.
The one used to determine what class of free agent a player was.
No sure if they use it any longer.
If I am not mistaken it was RBI +RS - HR= RR
Steve >>
Nice try, but no, Dr. J. made that one up all by himself. And how dare you try to impugn the stochastic genius that is Dr. J.
I propose that, once Dr. J. shares with us the true meaning of his new stat (I've got goosebumps, anyone else?), that from then on we refer to them not as "runs realized" but as "Dr. J.'s". We simply MUST memorialize for posterity the intellectual greatness that walks among us now. I can hear my great grandson now: "Sure, your guy gets on base more, has more power and fields better, but my guy has more Dr. J's". That'll shut up his stupid friends.
It was one of a series of stats used to determine if a player was a class A Free agent or a Class B
and so on.
Steve
Skip again I disagree even if he had hit like this all season it still would have been because of his teammates.
He has to drive someone in. Unless of course every RBI he had was due to a solo HR.
You can't have it both ways. You can argue his influence only.
Steve
First 81 games
I remember he was hitting around 200 in June, and had it up to around 220 at the break?
Thus, to get his average up to 250 (where it is now) he had to have been batting 300+ since the break.
Anyone know for sure what the splits are?
You can use since the break or 81 games or both.
I'd be interested in seeing that.
Steve
I took that from the internet.
8 23 393 in September alone.
Is that high leverage or what?
Steve
<< <i>I disagree, he may have not known about it but it HAS been used before.
It was one of a series of stats used to determine if a player was a class A Free agent or a Class B
and so on.
Steve >>
Nice re-try, but no, Dr. J. made that one up all by himself. Do I smell a sig-line bet?
Steve
High leverage is more to do w/ the score of the game at the time, and its chances on producing a win....rather than the month. A win is a win, whether it is in April or September.
Howard's hitting has been MVP like lately...not because of the RBI total, but because of HIS hitting contribution. Had he hit even a little under All Star level the first half, then he would have merited the MVP based on his contributions(rather than basing it on the RBI totals).
If Howard put a hole in the Hoover dam in April, and then fixed it in grand fashion in September...would you hail him as a hero? No.
His hot hitting of late is only rescuing the damage he did early on with his poor hitting. It needs to be looked at in totality, not just most recent.
That isn't the same as high/low leverage. Low leverage is hitting a HR in the 8th inning down by 7 runs. Yes, credit is given for high leverage hits in the first inning.
I was simply implying that September, in the middle of a pennant race IMO is high leverage.
Surely you can agree with that?
Also, and again my opinion, what he does late will stick in the minds of the voters.
Steve
<< <i>I was simply implying that September, in the middle of a pennant race IMO is high leverage. >>
If Howard was better than every other player in the NL from April through August, the Phillies would be be far enough ahead that it wouldn't be as much of a pennant race
<< <i>
<< <i>I was simply implying that September, in the middle of a pennant race IMO is high leverage. >>
If Howard was better than every other player in the NL from April through August, the Phillies would be be far enough ahead that it wouldn't be as much of a pennant race >>
But you're forgetting the second part of it-- if Howard had been that good from April to August, and the Phils were far ahead in the divisional race, the very same people touting him for MVP right now would actually think less of his '08 campaign because 'he isn't performing in the heat of a pennant race'.
-------------------------------------
LOL