|
Official Stats Thread
|
|
Topic Started: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:54 pm (1,080 Views)
|
|
sportslover
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:28 pm
Post #31
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- dbacksfan
- Apr 17 2008, 04:52 PM
- whose EqA is .157
- 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.
No, he wasn't defending new statistics nor was he attacking them. He was simply questioning the validity of my arguments, and he was correct in doing so.
|
|
|
| |
|
dbacksfan
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:38 pm
Post #32
|
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass
- Posts:
- 69
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- July 24, 2007
|
- sportslover
- Apr 17 2008, 01:28 PM
- dbacksfan
- Apr 17 2008, 04:52 PM
- whose EqA is .157
- 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.
No, he wasn't defending new statistics nor was he attacking them. He was simply questioning the validity of my arguments, and he was correct in doing so.
When did BDM post this?
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:40 pm
Post #33
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
wOBA, which I used in the Cubs preview:
http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/...g_to_know_woba/
|
|
|
| |
|
aCutb
|
Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:34 pm
Post #34
|
I drink your milkshake
- Posts:
- 3,651
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #24
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
- Hyltzn
- Apr 17 2008, 06:40 PM
I liked what the articles said about relievers right here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/c08.shtml
|
|
|
| |
|
JoeCoolMan24
|
Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:20 pm
Post #35
|
I got Alicia Sacramone
- Posts:
- 5,520
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
The Hardball Times just put out their latest "Dartboard" rankings. These are the rankings off all teams and projected wins if they all played a nuetral schedule. Strength of schedule is factored along with performance to go into the rankings.
The Diamondbacks figure out to be at 123 wins. That obviously isn't realistic, or a prediction, but thats how good they are if they were to play the same schedule as everyone else.
The worst team on the list is the Giants at 43 wins.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...-april-20-2008/
|
|
|
| |
|
dbacksfan
|
Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:59 am
Post #36
|
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass
- Posts:
- 69
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- July 24, 2007
|
- JoeCoolMan24
- Apr 20 2008, 04:20 PM
The Hardball Times just put out their latest "Dartboard" rankings. These are the rankings off all teams and projected wins if they all played a nuetral schedule. Strength of schedule is factored along with performance to go into the rankings. The Diamondbacks figure out to be at 123 wins.  That obviously isn't realistic, or a prediction, but thats how good they are if they were to play the same schedule as everyone else. The worst team on the list is the Giants at 43 wins. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...-april-20-2008/
I personally like these standings right here.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php
Post season odds by baseball prospectus, Clay Davenport sims the season 1 million times every day and posts the chances of each team getting to the playoffs.
Dbacks currently have a 73% chance of making it to the playoffs. 63% chance as the division champion and 9% chance by the wild card.
|
|
|
| |
|
sportslover
|
Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:19 pm
Post #37
|
- Posts:
- 3,863
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #16
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
Uh-oh, guys. The nerdy stat-heads in their mother's basements are taking over this forum...
|
|
|
| |
|
CELTS20
|
Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:52 pm
Post #38
|
Mission 17: Complete
- Posts:
- 3,092
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #21
- Joined:
- July 23, 2007
|
Joey Gathwright's OPS is .52
|
|
|
| |
|
dbacksfan
|
Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:08 pm
Post #39
|
I am a Ignorant Nazi Ass
- Posts:
- 69
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #38
- Joined:
- July 24, 2007
|
- Hyltzn
- Apr 21 2008, 03:19 PM
Uh-oh, guys. The nerdy stat-heads in their mother's basements are taking over this forum...
:o And your responsible :mellow:
|
|
|
| |
|
jrmycmpfan
|
Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:29 am
Post #40
|
Keep cool my babies
- Posts:
- 5,443
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #57
- Joined:
- July 27, 2007
|
- dbacksfan
- Apr 21 2008, 07:08 PM
- Hyltzn
- Apr 21 2008, 03:19 PM
Uh-oh, guys. The nerdy stat-heads in their mother's basements are taking over this forum...
:o And your responsible :mellow:
He's brainwashing you all.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|