Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
If you can't access your old account but want to post, post as a guest. The permissions have been altered so guests can post.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Official Stats Thread
Topic Started: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:54 pm (1,084 Views)
yankee242B
Member Avatar
I'm a lead farmer, motherf...

Discuss statistics, creating them, editing them, modifying them or whatever here.

And Joe, go shove that Zune up your ass and see how creative you feel.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
jrmycmpfan
Member Avatar
Keep cool my babies

He has a Creative Zen, not a Zune.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeCoolMan24
Member Avatar
I got Alicia Sacramone

jrmycmpfan
Apr 14 2008, 04:55 PM
He has a Creative Zen, not a Zune.

Yea really. At least it's not as insulting as it is when people call it an ipod. -_- Good lord, I throw up.

Anyway, what did that little comment have to do with this thread at all? You STARTED the thread and yet you managed to take it off topic with the first post. Amazing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbacksfan
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass

:rotfl: so true Joe.

I guess I will repost my shit...

I have been tooling around with this formula for only about a week and just recently shared it with whose eQa is .152. This is a stat to measure how many games a team should win (sort of like Pyth. record). Problem is, is that it uses OPS+ and ERA+ and like whose eQa is .152 said they do not really correlate very well with winning to begin with. For some odd reason though I have been getting almost the same results as to what a team should win as Pyth. has, sometimes a lot closer then what it predicts.

Granted it has it's few flawed teams (like pyth.) but overall it does not stray to far off of a teams actual/pyth. record. Here is the formula, I am going to use the 2005 Chisox as an example.

Pyth. record- 91-71/ Actual record- 99-63

Whitesox's team OPS+ that year- 95
Whitesox's team ERA+ that year- 124

Step 1: OPS+ (95) + ERA+ (124)= 219

In the next step I get 200 from adding up the league averages of both ERA+ and OPS+. So the league averages of both being 100, 100 + 100= 200

Step 2: 219 - 200= +19

In the above step this is where teams can get below .500 marks because if the team OPS+ and team ERA+ of the particular team added up is below 200 then you would get a negative number, in this case, we have a positive number though, which leads me to my next step.

Step 3: 81 + 19= 100

So this indicates that the white sox should have won 100 games, they won 99.

Another example.

2007 Dbacks

Pyth. record- 79-83/ Actual record- 90-72

Team OPS+ of 89
Team ERA+ of 114

89 + 114= 203

203 - 200= +3

81 + 3= 84 wins

Adjusted record of 84-78.

I have found a few teams that Pyth. has gotten closer but this formula has complemented by doing the same on other teams....

Please, point out any major flaws you see on particular teams and such.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mariners in 2009
Member Avatar


Can you do one with the 2001 Mariners really quick? I'm just curious how it turns out. :huh:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportslover
Member Avatar


The problem is that OPS+ and ERA+ are direct corollaries of winning, and the formula seems full of convidence and liable to crack under a different environment.

That's why Bill James RC/9 isn't a very good stat(among other reasons). Bill James was fooling around with run modelers, and RC/9 happened to fit perfectly in the .300-.400 OBP environment.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbacksfan
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass

sportslover
Apr 14 2008, 03:23 PM
The problem is that OPS+ and ERA+ are direct corollaries of winning, and the formula seems full of convidence and liable to crack under a different environment.

That's why Bill James RC/9 isn't a very good stat(among other reasons). Bill James was fooling around with run modelers, and RC/9 happened to fit perfectly in the .300-.400 OBP environment.

I think you meant "are not direct corollaries of winning".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportslover
Member Avatar


dbacksfan
Apr 14 2008, 08:21 PM
whose EqA is .157
Apr 14 2008, 03:23 PM
The problem is that OPS+ and ERA+ are direct corollaries of winning, and the formula seems full of convidence and liable to crack under a different environment.

That's why Bill James RC/9 isn't a very good stat(among other reasons). Bill James was fooling around with run modelers, and RC/9 happened to fit perfectly in the .300-.400 OBP environment.

I think you meant "are not direct corollaries of winning".

Yup. :blush:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportslover
Member Avatar


Tom responded:

Quote:
 
If I were you, I'd forget about all the OPS nonsense.
It gets you in the door, but you don't want to build a
house with it.

You are on the right path about positional
adjustments,  but it's not exactly what you want.

Tom


I agree. OPS is nonsense, but I still want to where I'm wrong.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
dbacksfan
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass

sportslover
Apr 14 2008, 04:28 PM
I agree. OPS is nonsense.

:huh: Really? I am not saying the stat is perfect or anything but to put it off all together seems wrong. Lord knows Tommy Tango knows more about baseball stats then I will in 4 life times but I just want to know the reasoning as to why he discounts OPS.

And M's, here is the 2001 Mariners.

Pyth. record- 109-53/ Actual record- 116-46

Team OPS+ - 118
Team ERA+ - 118

118 + 118= 236

236 - 200= +36

81 + 36= 117 wins :o

Missed by one game.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · United Sports · Next Topic »
Add Reply