The reason for 1.100 instead of 1.000 is written in the title of these posts
To me, 32 is significantly less than 67
More importantly, rare does not equal great. Only eight times in the past 100 years has anyone stolen 100 bases. Why wasn't Vince Coleman worthy of any MVP awards?
Forgive me if somebody already pointed this out (as interesting as I find this topic, I don't have the time to scan all 102 responses to the OP so far to see if somebody has already asked my question), but it seems like the numbers don't account for hits or sac flies that drove in a runner from 3rd, but not the guy from 2nd.
Just because the guy from 2nd isn't driven home doesn't mean Howard (or Pujols) failed. It may have been a frozen rope to the outfield that could only score one...or a deep fly ball that advanced both runners to home/3B.
The situation: Runners on 2nd and 3rd. A hitter hits a screaming single to right, scoring the guy on 3rd, but not the guy from 2nd, who gets to 3B. Under Hoopster's OP, the fact that the runner from 2nd did not score counts AGAINST the hitter. Obviously, this is not fair, since the hitter did his job. I want to know how this is accounted for?
I wasn't asking about sacrifices, I shouldn't have lumped that scenario in with my question, it only muddied the waters, sorry.
There are obviously differences in the value of a single depending on what kind of single it was. As far as I know, every existing system treats every single as an "average" single; for most players, that will work out fine, but players who get almost all hard singles will get cheated a little and players like Ichiro who hit nothing but singles and can barely clear the infield will look a lot better than they really are.
When comparing players whose value is mostly in their extra base hits (which is nearly all good players), the "quality" of their singles is very unlikely to make much difference over the course of a season. But it might.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>That is like saying 67 ounces of silver are worth more then 32 ounces of gold.
Without looking into it further saying 32 is less then 67 really has no meaning. >>
This is EXACTLY the point that hoopster and others have been trying to make since the beginning of the thread. OPS+ is gold, RBI is silver (actually tin or maybe aluminum). I don't even care about the context anymore, I'm just glad to see the argument being used.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Jdip9, the beauty in your question is that every single one of those situations is tracked, and every single other base, out, and score situation is tracked, but many guys don't want to use them because they aren't used to it, or just like the glossy version.
More on the creation of runs and assigning value.
We know that based on millions of play by play data from actual MLB games from 1956 to 2008 that the chance to score from second base with two outs is .21 percent. This isnt' some guess, it is the reality you guys speak of.
Fellas, if a man comes up and makes an out in that situation, what do you think the chance of scoring is then? It is zero! Yes, and that is why outs are bad...THEY PREVENT RUNS!! Yes, the very same runs many desire(but don't know how to equate the value of!!!!). Based on all my readings on this board, I am simply amazed that people completely ignore outs made...they must love when their heroes makes lots of outs!! Yes,, I know Hank Aaron and such are among the career leader in outs made, but that does not mean in the least that outs made is something good. It just means he played a long time, AND THAT THE POSITIVE OUTWEIGHED THE NEGATIVE TO A SUPREMEMLY HIGH DEGREE. The same cannot be said for a Jim Rice or Joe Carter.
Also, if you are measuring the man who got onto second base, you know what his ability to get on second base does, it gives your team x amount of chance to score runs and be good. Now this is important, IF HE HAS POOR TEAMMATES THAT DON"T ACTUALLY DRIVE HIM IN TO CREDIT HIMS WITH A RUN SCORED, IT IS NOT A KNOCK AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN"T HAVE AN ACTUAL RUN SCORED. IT IS A KNOCK AGAINST HIS SUB PAR TEAMMATES. FOr example,
If Winpitcher hits 50 doubles, and I hit 50 doubles, we know(based ont he play by play data) exactlay what the typical amount of runs can be expected by providing such a hitting value. If Dallas knocks me in all 50 of those times because he is a great hitter, and DRJ knocks in Winpithcer three times becaus he is a poor hitter, and I have 50 runs as a result, and Winpitcher 3 runs, it does not mean that I was a greater run producer than Winpitcher...it means he had a subpar teammate.
What usually happens is that some guy comes on and points to my 50 runs as greatness, and Winpitchers as poor. The reality is that Winpitcher and I did the exact same thing in producing runs, it is just that Winpitchers production never came to fruition because of poor teammates. Winpitchers runs are not theoretical runs, they are the value you can expect a player to provide in a neutral environment. If some moron paid me 50 million more than Winpitcher because I have 47 more runs, then he had better get the exact same set of teammates if he expects that to happen again!! Otherwise, he can expect what THE MILLIONS OF PLAY BY PLAY DATA TELLS US!
But instead we have some guy that collects Julius Erving rookies, who just flippantly says stuff because he has a job that punches buttons(good one Dallas), and then thinks he knows more than the research says. Yes, research from the actual occurances you guys so richly seek(yet ignore).
Yes, I know that the run scoring states change depending on eras, or the pitcher. If one can show that Jim Rice or Ryan Howard always faced the Aces of the teams, while other sluggers always faced the fourth or fifth starter, then it would matter. But they didn't...and you know how I know? Because it is already freaking recorded!! I also know that the speed of a runner could affect that, and that too can be measured. But the reality, in cases with guys who have poor OB%, rarely are they fast runners anyway(Rice, Joe Carter).
<< <i> But instead we have some guy that collects Julius Erving rookies, who just flippantly says stuff because he has a job that punches buttons(good one Dallas), and then thinks he knows more than the research says. Yes, research from the actual occurances you guys so richly seek(yet ignore).
>>
I punch buttons in my Kangaroo sneakers. In all seriousness Hoopster you are beginning to look like a raving lunatic without a leg to stand on. I don't think you understand even the basics of statistical analysis. You love spouting on and on about "data proves this or data proves that" or "Bill Buckner in 1986 would have been better without a closer" etc. etc. yet you never provide a complete analysis. Stick to the facts and try to be an adult and avoid childish insults. It may help your reputation around here which is sinking fast.
The length of my above post is a long one for a message board. The entire complete studies are available...no need for me to write a book on here.
You should probably read that post again. If you have questions, I could then find you are more complete write up on it. It makes no sense to go to great lengths to please you, as you will simply gloss over the pertinent information and ignore it so that you may continue to believe in your 'heroes'. Would you like a more complete study of it?
I would be dying to hear your take on Outs Made for a batter, their value, etc...
By the way, my reputation is the same on here as it has been for the last several years. If you are concerned above reputations, you should be concerned about the reputation you are carving for yourself
I am dying to hear your take on the value of outs made... Do they matter? To what degree? Are they real?
You present yourself as some guru, but you didn't even realize that there was a strike in 1981. >>
Hoopster,
Not sure where the comment about the 1981 strike came from. It may be in reference to my Buckner comments. I was only making the point that comparing two years out of a player's total career does not give an accurate representation of their overall contributions. 1981 was chosen as a random year, irrespective of the strike.
Outs made do matter, but it is hard to place an absolute value on their overall impact on the team. Outs made comparisons between two players will tell us the following...
1.) Player A or Player B is more likely to get on base over the course of the season.
2.) Outs made in key situations can kill run scoring opportunities, however this is very game and situational dependent. An out made with 2 outs and nobody on has little overall impact on the team, as the probability that a team will go on a prolonged rally with 2 outs is greatly decreased. An out made with bases loaded may or may not impact the team depending on whether there were already two outs and/or less than two outs what the subsequent batters accomplish. Unfortunately unless one is willing to look at every at bat and situation throughout a standard season, it is hard to take outs made as anything more than a single data point in evaluating a player.
3.) If a player has a significant number of outs made, yet also has a historically significant number of RBIs and 100 runs, it lets us know that the outs made were not overly negative for a team or its performance.
Comments
Steve
To me, 32 is significantly less than 67
More importantly, rare does not equal great. Only eight times in the past 100 years has anyone stolen 100 bases. Why wasn't Vince Coleman worthy of any MVP awards?
This has nothing to do with Vince Coleman or SB's it has everything to do with your earlier comment to Justin.
So if we know use that as a basis (136) it is Not so laughable anymore IMO.
I think (hope) I made my point. Probably not but who cares.
This whole thread is about the manipulation of stats and the last few posts bare it out.
Steve
That is like saying 67 ounces of silver are worth more then 32 ounces of gold.
Without looking into it further saying 32 is less then 67 really has no meaning.
Steve
Just because the guy from 2nd isn't driven home doesn't mean Howard (or Pujols) failed. It may have been a frozen rope to the outfield that could only score one...or a deep fly ball that advanced both runners to home/3B.
How is this scenario accounted for in the math?
Simply moving a runner up from 1st to 2nd or 2nd to 3rd does not give the batter any stat credit. (unless one is bunting)
Was that your question?
Steve
I wasn't asking about sacrifices, I shouldn't have lumped that scenario in with my question, it only muddied the waters, sorry.
To be honest I would imagine sabre guys use it somehow but It ain't on the back of a baseball card so I could care less.
.
Steve
When comparing players whose value is mostly in their extra base hits (which is nearly all good players), the "quality" of their singles is very unlikely to make much difference over the course of a season. But it might.
<< <i>That is like saying 67 ounces of silver are worth more then 32 ounces of gold.
Without looking into it further saying 32 is less then 67 really has no meaning. >>
This is EXACTLY the point that hoopster and others have been trying to make since the beginning of the thread. OPS+ is gold, RBI is silver (actually tin or maybe aluminum). I don't even care about the context anymore, I'm just glad to see the argument being used.
More on the creation of runs and assigning value.
We know that based on millions of play by play data from actual MLB games from 1956 to 2008 that the chance to score from second base with two outs is .21 percent. This isnt' some guess, it is the reality you guys speak of.
Fellas, if a man comes up and makes an out in that situation, what do you think the chance of scoring is then? It is zero! Yes, and that is why outs are bad...THEY PREVENT RUNS!! Yes, the very same runs many desire(but don't know how to equate the value of!!!!). Based on all my readings on this board, I am simply amazed that people completely ignore outs made...they must love when their heroes makes lots of outs!! Yes,, I know Hank Aaron and such are among the career leader in outs made, but that does not mean in the least that outs made is something good. It just means he played a long time, AND THAT THE POSITIVE OUTWEIGHED THE NEGATIVE TO A SUPREMEMLY HIGH DEGREE. The same cannot be said for a Jim Rice or Joe Carter.
Also, if you are measuring the man who got onto second base, you know what his ability to get on second base does, it gives your team x amount of chance to score runs and be good. Now this is important, IF HE HAS POOR TEAMMATES THAT DON"T ACTUALLY DRIVE HIM IN TO CREDIT HIMS WITH A RUN SCORED, IT IS NOT A KNOCK AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN"T HAVE AN ACTUAL RUN SCORED. IT IS A KNOCK AGAINST HIS SUB PAR TEAMMATES. FOr example,
If Winpitcher hits 50 doubles, and I hit 50 doubles, we know(based ont he play by play data) exactlay what the typical amount of runs can be expected by providing such a hitting value. If Dallas knocks me in all 50 of those times because he is a great hitter, and DRJ knocks in Winpithcer three times becaus he is a poor hitter, and I have 50 runs as a result, and Winpitcher 3 runs, it does not mean that I was a greater run producer than Winpitcher...it means he had a subpar teammate.
What usually happens is that some guy comes on and points to my 50 runs as greatness, and Winpitchers as poor. The reality is that Winpitcher and I did the exact same thing in producing runs, it is just that Winpitchers production never came to fruition because of poor teammates. Winpitchers runs are not theoretical runs, they are the value you can expect a player to provide in a neutral environment. If some moron paid me 50 million more than Winpitcher because I have 47 more runs, then he had better get the exact same set of teammates if he expects that to happen again!! Otherwise, he can expect what THE MILLIONS OF PLAY BY PLAY DATA TELLS US!
But instead we have some guy that collects Julius Erving rookies, who just flippantly says stuff because he has a job that punches buttons(good one Dallas), and then thinks he knows more than the research says. Yes, research from the actual occurances you guys so richly seek(yet ignore).
Yes, I know that the run scoring states change depending on eras, or the pitcher. If one can show that Jim Rice or Ryan Howard always faced the Aces of the teams, while other sluggers always faced the fourth or fifth starter, then it would matter. But they didn't...and you know how I know? Because it is already freaking recorded!! I also know that the speed of a runner could affect that, and that too can be measured. But the reality, in cases with guys who have poor OB%, rarely are they fast runners anyway(Rice, Joe Carter).
-Skinpinch
FYI Winpitcher, OPS is on the back of baseball cards
FYI Hoopster that began about 5 years ago, before that no.
So basically we have 100 years of trading card history without it and 5 with it.
Steve
Steve
Steve
<< <i>
But instead we have some guy that collects Julius Erving rookies, who just flippantly says stuff because he has a job that punches buttons(good one Dallas), and then thinks he knows more than the research says. Yes, research from the actual occurances you guys so richly seek(yet ignore).
>>
I punch buttons in my Kangaroo sneakers. In all seriousness Hoopster you are beginning to look like a raving lunatic without a leg to stand on. I don't think you understand even the basics of statistical analysis. You love spouting on and on about "data proves this or data proves that" or "Bill Buckner in 1986 would have been better without a closer" etc. etc. yet you never provide a complete analysis. Stick to the facts and try to be an adult and avoid childish insults. It may help your reputation around here which is sinking fast.
The length of my above post is a long one for a message board. The entire complete studies are available...no need for me to write a book on here.
You should probably read that post again. If you have questions, I could then find you are more complete write up on it. It makes no sense to go to great lengths to please you, as you will simply gloss over the pertinent information and ignore it so that you may continue to believe in your 'heroes'. Would you like a more complete study of it?
I would be dying to hear your take on Outs Made for a batter, their value, etc...
By the way, my reputation is the same on here as it has been for the last several years. If you are concerned above reputations, you should be concerned about the reputation you are carving for yourself
But then again we always sorta knew that anyway. It takes a team to play this game.
I can't drive in a run unless my team mate reaches base, unless of course I hit a solo HR. Then I drive myself in.
I also may not drive that run in if the batter in front of me did not move the first batter up a base.
All that went without saying.
The analogy used the other day hit the nail on the head. I am referring to the free throw analogy that Skip used.
With all that has been said I still personally think that whoever leads the league in RBI"s still has accomplished
something regardless if it took more at bats then the runnerup or the guy in 6th place.
Steve
I am dying to hear your take on the value of outs made... Do they matter? To what degree? Are they real?
You present yourself as some guru, but you didn't even realize that there was a strike in 1981.
rbi / total men on base + AB = Rbi efficeincy (or something along those lines)
Meaning you are finding the percentage of all possible RBI that a batter hit in during the course of the year?
Would (or does) this stat have any significance, or would it be pretty pointless. It sounds like it would be pretty telling.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>DrJ,
I am dying to hear your take on the value of outs made... Do they matter? To what degree? Are they real?
You present yourself as some guru, but you didn't even realize that there was a strike in 1981. >>
Hoopster,
Not sure where the comment about the 1981 strike came from. It may be in reference to my Buckner comments. I was only making the point that comparing two years out of a player's total career does not give an accurate representation of their overall contributions. 1981 was chosen as a random year, irrespective of the strike.
Outs made do matter, but it is hard to place an absolute value on their overall impact on the team. Outs made comparisons between two players will tell us the following...
1.) Player A or Player B is more likely to get on base over the course of the season.
2.) Outs made in key situations can kill run scoring opportunities, however this is very game and situational dependent. An out made with 2 outs and nobody on has little overall impact on the team, as the probability that a team will go on a prolonged rally with 2 outs is greatly decreased. An out made with bases loaded may or may not impact the team depending on whether there were already two outs and/or less than two outs what the subsequent batters accomplish. Unfortunately unless one is willing to look at every at bat and situation throughout a standard season, it is hard to take outs made as anything more than a single data point in evaluating a player.
3.) If a player has a significant number of outs made, yet also has a historically significant number of RBIs and 100 runs, it lets us know that the outs made were not overly negative for a team or its performance.
J