|
Official Stats Thread
|
|
Topic Started: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:54 pm (1,081 Views)
|
|
sportslover
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:01 pm
Post #21
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- dbacksfan
- Apr 15 2008, 06:27 PM
I know what BABIP is but what is eBABIP?
eBABIP = expected BABIP = the BABIP a pitcher or hitter should have had given their batted ball data
|
|
|
| |
|
dbacksfan
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:15 pm
Post #22
|
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass
- Posts:
- 69
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- July 24, 2007
|
- sportslover
- Apr 15 2008, 03:01 PM
- dbacksfan
- Apr 15 2008, 06:27 PM
I know what BABIP is but what is eBABIP?
eBABIP = expected BABIP = the BABIP a pitcher or hitter should have had given their batted ball data
Ah, thanks
|
|
|
| |
|
Infallable
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:24 pm
Post #23
|
I don't break character until after the DVD commentary
- Posts:
- 4,742
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
What exactly is the point of predicting a team's record for a particular season using their stats from that same year?
It's like baking a cake and then looking at the recipe to try and figure out what it tastes like.
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:32 pm
Post #24
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- Infallable
- Apr 15 2008, 07:24 PM
What exactly is the point of predicting a team's record for a particular season using their stats from that same year?
It's like baking a cake and then looking at the recipe to try and figure out what it tastes like.
Well, first of all it's not predicting. You can't predict something that has already happened.
It's used to get a better look at how good a team really was and to take luck out of the equation. That's it.
|
|
|
| |
|
JoeCoolMan24
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:47 pm
Post #25
|
I got Alicia Sacramone
- Posts:
- 5,520
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- sportslover
- Apr 15 2008, 05:32 PM
- Infallable
- Apr 15 2008, 07:24 PM
What exactly is the point of predicting a team's record for a particular season using their stats from that same year?
It's like baking a cake and then looking at the recipe to try and figure out what it tastes like.
Well, first of all it's not predicting. You can't predict something that has already happened. It's used to get a better look at how good a team really was and to take luck out of the equation. That's it.
Yea, it's like what they should have done based on performance and not all the other variables that don't equate into stats.
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:49 pm
Post #26
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- JoeCoolMan24
- Apr 15 2008, 07:47 PM
- whose EqA is .157
- Apr 15 2008, 05:32 PM
- Infallable
- Apr 15 2008, 07:24 PM
What exactly is the point of predicting a team's record for a particular season using their stats from that same year?
It's like baking a cake and then looking at the recipe to try and figure out what it tastes like.
Well, first of all it's not predicting. You can't predict something that has already happened. It's used to get a better look at how good a team really was and to take luck out of the equation. That's it.
Yea, it's like what they should have done based on performance and not all the other variables that don't equate into stats.
Exactly.
|
|
|
| |
|
CHILL
|
Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:04 pm
Post #27
|
- Posts:
- 3,707
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #30
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- jrmycmpfan
- Apr 14 2008, 10:45 PM
- Mariners in 2008
- Apr 14 2008, 08:04 PM
Omg, I remember that game so well. That was such a ridiculous comeback. It was on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball.
I remember that game too because as I've mentioned before Kenny Lofton scored the game winning run, and I remember the play.
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:28 pm
Post #28
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
Tango on why he doesn't like OPS found at Baseball-Fever:
- Tango
-
I can generally agree that OPS is one stat in which the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
My bigger problem with OPS is how often it is used as an endpoint rather than starting point in discussion and analysis.
For such big negatives, I don't find the "single unified number" as enough of a positive to be really happy with OPS.
It's good in the sense that if you don't have Charmin (or Baby Wipes), then just use the store brand. It gets the job done without being proud of it.
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:47 pm
Post #29
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
I was looking through some threads last night and found this:
- BDM
-
Problem with your analysis is you just straight rip the opinions other people have written with sabermetrics, you show no criticism of any of their stats and you use near mirror image phrasing that you find in moneyball or on baseball prospectus. It seems like you just read all this stuff, thought wow this is what's real, seriously when you type it just sounds brainwashed because you bring no unique twist on the stats. Sabermetrics are a nice tool, but only a tool, tell me exactly how a stat can eliminate ballpark factor? You can't, they just use #'s to adjust it, but fact it a ballpark's effect isn't based on #'s, and you can't just grab some #'s and average it out and assume that it exactly replicates what someone would do in another park or a level playing field park. Somethings just can't be forecast, and using averages it's going to adjust ballpark factor legitimately.
Explain to me why the #'s that they use to determine ballpark factor are the right #'s to prove how you would eliminate a ballpark's factor, and how exactly that works. Eliminating ballpark factor sounds nice, and would seem real useful when you read it as a stat, if you could actually do it, but you can't. Even many writers who like to use BP factor specifically state it's not perfect, and you should use it as if it were.
You can just say Pujols' OPS+ is better than Holliday's so plain and simple he's better, because OPS+ isn't a perfect stat.
I agree.
:unsure: I was being a dick by just pointing to statistics without explaining why I stood for whatever it was I was arguing. I also see what he mean by lack of criticism for saber-stuff. Times have a-changed.
-_-
|
|
|
| |
|
dbacksfan
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Post #30
|
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass
- Posts:
- 69
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- July 24, 2007
|
- sportslover
- Apr 17 2008, 10:47 AM
I was looking through some threads last night and found this: - BDM
-
Problem with your analysis is you just straight rip the opinions other people have written with sabermetrics, you show no criticism of any of their stats and you use near mirror image phrasing that you find in moneyball or on baseball prospectus. It seems like you just read all this stuff, thought wow this is what's real, seriously when you type it just sounds brainwashed because you bring no unique twist on the stats. Sabermetrics are a nice tool, but only a tool, tell me exactly how a stat can eliminate ballpark factor? You can't, they just use #'s to adjust it, but fact it a ballpark's effect isn't based on #'s, and you can't just grab some #'s and average it out and assume that it exactly replicates what someone would do in another park or a level playing field park. Somethings just can't be forecast, and using averages it's going to adjust ballpark factor legitimately.
Explain to me why the #'s that they use to determine ballpark factor are the right #'s to prove how you would eliminate a ballpark's factor, and how exactly that works. Eliminating ballpark factor sounds nice, and would seem real useful when you read it as a stat, if you could actually do it, but you can't. Even many writers who like to use BP factor specifically state it's not perfect, and you should use it as if it were.
You can just say Pujols' OPS+ is better than Holliday's so plain and simple he's better, because OPS+ isn't a perfect stat.
I agree.
:unsure: I was being a dick by just pointing to statistics without explaining why I stood for whatever it was I was arguing. I also see what he mean by lack of criticism for saber-stuff. Times have a-changed.
-_-
Yeah but he talks about how the stat is not perfect and shit, well yeah, no stat will ever be 100% perfect but it sure as fuck does a helluva lot better analyzing a player then most of these other "traditional stats" that are more commonly used.
And at least the stat attempts to adjust a player to his respective ballpark, once again, sure it is not perfect, but it's the evidence we have to work with.
So then I would ask BDM what should we use to see if Pujols is really better then Matt Holliday, because their is a answer to it, but how BDM go about proving either one.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|