 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Vote on RF bonus for MVP
| Poll: Vote on RF bonus for MVP | |
|---|---|
| Yes, RF's are inherently superior beings, perhaps demi-gods. Hitters will actually hit away from them in fear! | 7 |
| No, RF's are actually just human beings and equal to lowly LF's & 1B. | 16 |
paulcaraccio
December 03, 2010 at 11:40PM View BBCode
The MVP races affected by the RF bonus are the two that Juan Gonzalez won, in '96 and '98. Removing the RF bonus would have Griffey in the lead in '96, and Bernie Williams in '98.
Hamilton2
Turtle, the math was done in the process of creating this formula. I don't have the exact numbers. You can read about the process here: http://simdynasty.com/mvp.jsp
Thank you, Paul, for giving some examples of MLB MVP winners who would not have won without a RF bonus in the current formula.
December 03, 2010 at 11:44PM View BBCode
Penguin, I don't know the exact number, read this for some great informatin: http://simdynasty.com/mvp.jspTurtle, the math was done in the process of creating this formula. I don't have the exact numbers. You can read about the process here: http://simdynasty.com/mvp.jsp
Thank you, Paul, for giving some examples of MLB MVP winners who would not have won without a RF bonus in the current formula.
Admin
Tyson
December 04, 2010 at 12:10AM View BBCode
2008 AL MVP was wrong too, our formula had Dye winning perhaps due to the fact that he played RF.Tyson
barterer2002
I disagree with your assessment that Lonnie Smith, Lou Brock, Rickey Henderson, and that ilk are superior simply because they can run. There is a reason these guys always always always play LF and its because they aren't any good.
December 04, 2010 at 05:39AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Originally posted by barterer2002
Willy
My contention is that you're looking at the wrong thing. You have consistently contended that LF and RF are equal positions which seems wrong to me. Players like Barry Bonds or Lou Brock couldn't play RF because they couldn't throw for crap. Anyone can play LF however, its where you hide the horrible defensive player in MLB.
The issue then in SD is that these two positions are treated the same defensively. It seems more logical to me to say that we need to make defense more relevant, to make it more likely for out of position players to err, to make throws from the OF relevant etc.
I agree about fixing the defense in SimD. I have mentioned it before.
I still contend your wrong about RF. Having an arm doesn't make you a great fielder or player. Speed and glove are more important than thrwoing arm. Arm is a tie-breaker.
I disagree with your assessment that Lonnie Smith, Lou Brock, Rickey Henderson, and that ilk are superior simply because they can run. There is a reason these guys always always always play LF and its because they aren't any good.
WillyD
Player#1 has C- Range and B+ arm.
Player#2 has B- range and C- arm.
Now, I would put player#1 in RF because he has a better arm which is needed for longer throws and to help prevent triple chances which occur more often in RF or CF then LF due to the distance to third base. He is not necessarily there for his glove. RF's tend to see fewer chances so you can hide his poor glove there. Now since Range also includes how much ground a player can cover, in some cases teams will put the better range player, as long as his arm decent, in RF because of a big RF, such as Fenway Park.
I would put player#2 in LF for a couple reasons. One, as you contend, LF's are where you can hide a bad arm because it's a shorter throw to third making triple chances rare when the ball is hit to LF. Secondly I want Player#2 in LF because more balls will be hit there in most games in most seasons and in most leagues, and I want the better glove guy there. Now I even gave Player#1 a better overall defense combo and you can still see the value in Player#2 playing LF over RF. This negates the RF is more important than LF argument especially in SimD. They are just different positions that are suited better to certain players. I could also throw in a ballpark like Yankee stadium which has a HUGE left center field and a short right field fence. This would make arm for RF even less important and more important for a LF. Since the Yankees have a lot of left-handed hitters, range now increases in importance for RF due to more balls being hit in that direction. Range for LF would be even more important too because of the increase in the size of LF.
In MLB the arm will matter more than SimD because the RF will actually get a chance to throw out and possibly keep players from even trying for extra bases. In SimD the arm matters little if any in determining where you should play in the OF. But range to me is more important and I'll tell you why. OF's get many more chances to catch the ball than throw the ball even in MLB. Of those throws only a small percentage are actually from RF or CF to 3B. Many throws go to 2B or to home plate and the distance will be the same. Secondly since LF's may handle more chances they may actually get more chances to throw the ball giving argument that arm is not irrelevant for LF's. Then you add in the fact that in SimD arm accuracy is included in the arm rating, it may be nice to have a decent arm in LF since accuracy can determine ability to throw out runners and LF's may get more chances in SimD and even in MLB.
[Edited on 12-4-2010 by WillyD]
December 04, 2010 at 06:22AM View BBCode
Bart you still don't get it. You're picking out bad LF's who can run. There are bad RF's who can only throw. Arm is more important in RF than LF. But consider how range, which in SimD includes not only glove but ability to reach fly balls, matters more. For example:Player#1 has C- Range and B+ arm.
Player#2 has B- range and C- arm.
Now, I would put player#1 in RF because he has a better arm which is needed for longer throws and to help prevent triple chances which occur more often in RF or CF then LF due to the distance to third base. He is not necessarily there for his glove. RF's tend to see fewer chances so you can hide his poor glove there. Now since Range also includes how much ground a player can cover, in some cases teams will put the better range player, as long as his arm decent, in RF because of a big RF, such as Fenway Park.
I would put player#2 in LF for a couple reasons. One, as you contend, LF's are where you can hide a bad arm because it's a shorter throw to third making triple chances rare when the ball is hit to LF. Secondly I want Player#2 in LF because more balls will be hit there in most games in most seasons and in most leagues, and I want the better glove guy there. Now I even gave Player#1 a better overall defense combo and you can still see the value in Player#2 playing LF over RF. This negates the RF is more important than LF argument especially in SimD. They are just different positions that are suited better to certain players. I could also throw in a ballpark like Yankee stadium which has a HUGE left center field and a short right field fence. This would make arm for RF even less important and more important for a LF. Since the Yankees have a lot of left-handed hitters, range now increases in importance for RF due to more balls being hit in that direction. Range for LF would be even more important too because of the increase in the size of LF.
In MLB the arm will matter more than SimD because the RF will actually get a chance to throw out and possibly keep players from even trying for extra bases. In SimD the arm matters little if any in determining where you should play in the OF. But range to me is more important and I'll tell you why. OF's get many more chances to catch the ball than throw the ball even in MLB. Of those throws only a small percentage are actually from RF or CF to 3B. Many throws go to 2B or to home plate and the distance will be the same. Secondly since LF's may handle more chances they may actually get more chances to throw the ball giving argument that arm is not irrelevant for LF's. Then you add in the fact that in SimD arm accuracy is included in the arm rating, it may be nice to have a decent arm in LF since accuracy can determine ability to throw out runners and LF's may get more chances in SimD and even in MLB.
[Edited on 12-4-2010 by WillyD]
Stros
I played the game through college and I never heard a coach talk about cutting triples down. Every coach on every team I ever played on put the slowest, biggest guy with the worst arm at 1st, the guy with the cannon in RF, the best athlete that couldn't field a grounder in CF and the best hitter who shouldn't be on the field in left.
RF arm is there to cut down 1st to 3rd and it's very important during a game.
Back to the topic. The MVP formula got 27 out of 32. Thats impressive to me. If anyone has one that gets 28 of 32, lets read it.
December 04, 2010 at 08:25AM View BBCode
Triple chances?I played the game through college and I never heard a coach talk about cutting triples down. Every coach on every team I ever played on put the slowest, biggest guy with the worst arm at 1st, the guy with the cannon in RF, the best athlete that couldn't field a grounder in CF and the best hitter who shouldn't be on the field in left.
RF arm is there to cut down 1st to 3rd and it's very important during a game.
Back to the topic. The MVP formula got 27 out of 32. Thats impressive to me. If anyone has one that gets 28 of 32, lets read it.
WillyD
December 04, 2010 at 03:35PM View BBCode
Yes first to third fits my post as well. It's essentailly the same thing, because more players will try to take third on a single because of the greater throwing distance.
WillyD
December 04, 2010 at 03:50PM View BBCode
Basing a formula on 32 MVP races is flawed thinking. It is an incredibly small sample size. It's just guess work. 32 MVP races later they may start giving LF a 150 point bonus because some 4-tool player of the future (yes 5-tool minus the arm) plays LF and wins 3 or 4 MVP's by a close margin and the only way the formula can "work" is to apply a bonus to LF's. There are too many factors that affect MVP voting in MLB that are not represented in SimD. Again, I want someone to answer the question on how you can justify it's accuracy on 32 MVP votes? Even going 95 out of 100 wouldn't be enough of a sample size.
barterer2002
Now as for MLB
Player#1 has C- Range and B+ arm.
Player#2 has B- range and C- arm.
You can't tell me which player equate with these stats other than by guessing.
I think I remember Bill James writing an interesting article on LFers in one of his Historical Abstracts. If I had to guess I'd think it was the article on Lou Brock but unfortunately don't have my copy handy to confirm it.
December 04, 2010 at 05:15PM View BBCode
You realize of course that we have that 4 tool player who won 7 MVPs in our data right? His name was Barry Bonds?Now as for MLB
Player#1 has C- Range and B+ arm.
Player#2 has B- range and C- arm.
You can't tell me which player equate with these stats other than by guessing.
I think I remember Bill James writing an interesting article on LFers in one of his Historical Abstracts. If I had to guess I'd think it was the article on Lou Brock but unfortunately don't have my copy handy to confirm it.
WillyD
December 05, 2010 at 12:28AM View BBCode
Bonds won 7, but I'm guessing he won by a lot in most of them. Since he won so easily no bonus for RF or any other position would have made much difference in voting. If someone like that were to be invlolved in some close races where the stats say someone else should win but doesn't, then you'll have to change the bonus system to make it all work.
WillyD
December 05, 2010 at 12:29AM View BBCode
Those players are not based on real players just hypothetical players.
dirtdevil
that's because you want the mvp formula to pick what you think is the 'best' player rather than the player who 'would' have won mlb voting had it been done based on the SD season. since that is tyson's stated aim, there are only so many mvp votes that can be used.
December 05, 2010 at 04:32AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Basing a formula on 32 MVP races is flawed thinking.
that's because you want the mvp formula to pick what you think is the 'best' player rather than the player who 'would' have won mlb voting had it been done based on the SD season. since that is tyson's stated aim, there are only so many mvp votes that can be used.
phen0m
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. For those saying "either come up with a better formula or shut up and stop complaining", how exactly is someone supposed to come up with a better formula when its not really the formula itself that they think is flawed, its the premise of basing that formula on an insanely small sample size which is highly illogical and obviously flawed? If we came up with a "better formula" that predicted 100% it would still be incredibly flawed.
December 05, 2010 at 06:27AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Basing a formula on 32 MVP races is flawed thinking. It is an incredibly small sample size. It's just guess work. 32 MVP races later they may start giving LF a 150 point bonus because some 4-tool player of the future (yes 5-tool minus the arm) plays LF and wins 3 or 4 MVP's by a close margin and the only way the formula can "work" is to apply a bonus to LF's. There are too many factors that affect MVP voting in MLB that are not represented in SimD. Again, I want someone to answer the question on how you can justify it's accuracy on 32 MVP votes? Even going 95 out of 100 wouldn't be enough of a sample size.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. For those saying "either come up with a better formula or shut up and stop complaining", how exactly is someone supposed to come up with a better formula when its not really the formula itself that they think is flawed, its the premise of basing that formula on an insanely small sample size which is highly illogical and obviously flawed? If we came up with a "better formula" that predicted 100% it would still be incredibly flawed.
res98
We have 2 pages now of totally redundant post's that after the 1st several post's, have said NOTHING NEW!
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't! Ad nauseous.
December 05, 2010 at 04:44PM View BBCode
This thread is an example of what is wrong with the Suggest Enhancements Thread...period.We have 2 pages now of totally redundant post's that after the 1st several post's, have said NOTHING NEW!
Yes, you did. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. No, I didn't! Ad nauseous.
WillyD
Actually I don't. This is you assuming things again and also not reading the entire post. Read Phenom's post.
Thanks to Phenom on his well stated opinion on this matter.
December 05, 2010 at 05:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by WillyD
Basing a formula on 32 MVP races is flawed thinking.
that's because you want the mvp formula to pick what you think is the 'best' player rather than the player who 'would' have won mlb voting had it been done based on the SD season. since that is tyson's stated aim, there are only so many mvp votes that can be used.
Actually I don't. This is you assuming things again and also not reading the entire post. Read Phenom's post.
Thanks to Phenom on his well stated opinion on this matter.
dirtdevil
December 05, 2010 at 07:50PM View BBCode
i have, and it is very well written. it also says the same thing i just did about your goals. however, as it also ignores the fact that tyson's wish is to emulate the mlb voting results, i'm not sure how we're to respond.
barterer2002
December 05, 2010 at 10:17PM View BBCode
OK Willy and Phenom, here is the question for you then. How would you design a formula that is designed to emulate the MLB awards without actually looking at the MLB awards?
WillyD
I will say this again. Bart you are to be commended on doing so much work on this and doing a fine job. I hope your formula predicts many more MLB MVP winners, since that is what it was designed for. You will always have controversey since MLB results evoke similar outcry from MLB fans. You will have to live with that.
Perhaps one day the sim will more accurately account for speed in defense, arm accuracy as well as arm strength, and get more throws from the outfield to 2nd, 3rd, and home. Some throwing errors by OFer's would be cool too. These things could help seperate the MVP's from the pretenders.
December 06, 2010 at 03:10AM View BBCode
If you emulate an imperfect award then you'll get imperfect results. If this is Tyson's goal, then we'll have to live with it. That goal is different from my goal which is to elect the actual MVP. But to say it works with so little of a sample size is hypothetical at best. I like some of the things you included in your formula, but no matter what, a player winning MVP because he was a RF'er is hard to take. Players getting a penalty for having already won it, or a bonus for being on a playoff team, etc., seem logical to me because a lot of people probably would factor (and do) that in their votes. I'm guessing those factors were easier to account for and a lot more obvious to you when you were creating the formula. The RF bonus just doesn't make sense and seems to be like plastering over a hole in the wall with some cardboard. The rseults might look right, but aren't.I will say this again. Bart you are to be commended on doing so much work on this and doing a fine job. I hope your formula predicts many more MLB MVP winners, since that is what it was designed for. You will always have controversey since MLB results evoke similar outcry from MLB fans. You will have to live with that.
Perhaps one day the sim will more accurately account for speed in defense, arm accuracy as well as arm strength, and get more throws from the outfield to 2nd, 3rd, and home. Some throwing errors by OFer's would be cool too. These things could help seperate the MVP's from the pretenders.
barterer2002
This has been the stated goal of Tyson for the past 3 years. He has consistently weighed in on the topic with this statement. He has also indicated that for those who want to have a "best hitter" award like what you're advocating that he's willing to do a Hank Aaron award which would do what you're looking for.
I confess that I'm a little dismayed to find that you've been so active in this discussion without ever realizing what Tyson's stated goals are.
December 06, 2010 at 05:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
If you emulate an imperfect award then you'll get imperfect results. If this is Tyson's goal, then we'll have to live with it. That goal is different from my goal which is to elect the actual MVP.
This has been the stated goal of Tyson for the past 3 years. He has consistently weighed in on the topic with this statement. He has also indicated that for those who want to have a "best hitter" award like what you're advocating that he's willing to do a Hank Aaron award which would do what you're looking for.
I confess that I'm a little dismayed to find that you've been so active in this discussion without ever realizing what Tyson's stated goals are.
WillyD
It's regrettable that Tyson feels this way. It's regrettable that the Real MVP is sometimes not being recognized sometimes because of a misguided policy to use a flawed formula based on an inadequate sample size of an imperfect MLB voting system.
I'd be all for Silver Slugger awards by position, but we don't need an overall best hitter award. Don't assume that's what I want. For example:
Two players, whose teams tied for the division title, both have very good years. Player "A" is a LF and has slightly better numbers than player "B" who is a RF. Currently, unless the RF has previously won the MVP, the LF won't win. This is flat out wrong! He may be a better fielder, make less errors and have more assists than his RF counterpart, which in SimD is very possible, but will still fall short. The LF is your real MVP, period. There may well be a hitter or two on who had better offensive numbers that played on another team that finished with close to a .500 winning pct. Unless they had absolute monster years they won't win the MVP and shouldn't.
Owners now switch players to RF to help their player win the award. This is too bad. The RF bonus is causing less realism in SimD not more. You are seeing B+ range/ C- arm players in RF and C- Range/B+ arm players in LF. You could fix the defense in SimD making these switches less common due to the negative effect it would have, but would still leave the injustice of the better player not getting his due. So get rid of the position bonuses and let defensive stats be counted more in the voting. If the RF is a really good fielder he could get past the LF by racking up some assists, putouts and by making less errors. But if he is a poor fielder with a powerful but innacurate arm, he'll be penalized and give the LF an actual chance at winning. So if your theory that better fielders play RF then let them prove it! Make fielding meaningful and make it count in the voting more.
December 07, 2010 at 12:19AM View BBCode
I know that it is Tyson's goal and have known. That doesn't mean I have to be silent when someone touts the myth of RF superiority in MLB, especially since, even if true, would mean nothing in SimD.It's regrettable that Tyson feels this way. It's regrettable that the Real MVP is sometimes not being recognized sometimes because of a misguided policy to use a flawed formula based on an inadequate sample size of an imperfect MLB voting system.
I'd be all for Silver Slugger awards by position, but we don't need an overall best hitter award. Don't assume that's what I want. For example:
Two players, whose teams tied for the division title, both have very good years. Player "A" is a LF and has slightly better numbers than player "B" who is a RF. Currently, unless the RF has previously won the MVP, the LF won't win. This is flat out wrong! He may be a better fielder, make less errors and have more assists than his RF counterpart, which in SimD is very possible, but will still fall short. The LF is your real MVP, period. There may well be a hitter or two on who had better offensive numbers that played on another team that finished with close to a .500 winning pct. Unless they had absolute monster years they won't win the MVP and shouldn't.
Owners now switch players to RF to help their player win the award. This is too bad. The RF bonus is causing less realism in SimD not more. You are seeing B+ range/ C- arm players in RF and C- Range/B+ arm players in LF. You could fix the defense in SimD making these switches less common due to the negative effect it would have, but would still leave the injustice of the better player not getting his due. So get rid of the position bonuses and let defensive stats be counted more in the voting. If the RF is a really good fielder he could get past the LF by racking up some assists, putouts and by making less errors. But if he is a poor fielder with a powerful but innacurate arm, he'll be penalized and give the LF an actual chance at winning. So if your theory that better fielders play RF then let them prove it! Make fielding meaningful and make it count in the voting more.
tm4559
the positional bonuses, right or wrong (the one for rf is not the only one) don't have to make sense intuitively, they simply have to make the forumla predict the past winner better.
it doesn't have to make sense. the real life selection does not always make sense.
this is how you build a predictive model. you put things in there, and you try to get it to give back the past. then you say (this is the part where you make an assumtpion, it is the key part of model building, in fact, model building is entirely pointless without this assumtion):
"I believe the future will be much like the (recent) past."
(part of why they are only using thirty years or so of past winners is right there. things change over time. if you were to build a model that predicted what mode of transportation folks preferred, you wouldn't put 500 years of horse riding in there and only 100 years of car riding. in much the same way, the reasons the writers picked Dustin Pedroia or whoever in a recent season might be quite dissimilar from the reasons why they picked who the hell ever 50 years ago. we don't know. that is why we build models. because we don't know. and even if the model is perfect, we still don't know, because we don't know the model is perfect. you can never, ever know. sorry.)
where was i? oh yeah, the right field bonus. why do you guys hate right field so much. some pretty doggone good players have played out there.
December 07, 2010 at 04:19PM View BBCode
you guys miss the point. nobody knows why the writers chose the player they chose. in any year.the positional bonuses, right or wrong (the one for rf is not the only one) don't have to make sense intuitively, they simply have to make the forumla predict the past winner better.
it doesn't have to make sense. the real life selection does not always make sense.
this is how you build a predictive model. you put things in there, and you try to get it to give back the past. then you say (this is the part where you make an assumtpion, it is the key part of model building, in fact, model building is entirely pointless without this assumtion):
"I believe the future will be much like the (recent) past."
(part of why they are only using thirty years or so of past winners is right there. things change over time. if you were to build a model that predicted what mode of transportation folks preferred, you wouldn't put 500 years of horse riding in there and only 100 years of car riding. in much the same way, the reasons the writers picked Dustin Pedroia or whoever in a recent season might be quite dissimilar from the reasons why they picked who the hell ever 50 years ago. we don't know. that is why we build models. because we don't know. and even if the model is perfect, we still don't know, because we don't know the model is perfect. you can never, ever know. sorry.)
where was i? oh yeah, the right field bonus. why do you guys hate right field so much. some pretty doggone good players have played out there.
paulcaraccio
December 07, 2010 at 06:43PM View BBCode
We dont hate right field, we just don't think it's nearly 5x more important than center field and 3B, or infinitely more important than LF and 1B
tm4559
(you see where this is going?)
December 07, 2010 at 09:24PM View BBCode
it isn't five times as important. they just had to give it that much weight to get back the past results.(you see where this is going?)
paulcaraccio
December 08, 2010 at 12:03AM View BBCode
not really, where's it going? you asked why we hate right field, but i dont think anybody actually hates that place, was just explaining how we really feel. I thought that was it, didnt know it was going somewhere...
dirtdevil
no they don't. good luck.
December 08, 2010 at 01:15AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
it isn't five times as important. they just had to give it that much weight to get back the past results.
(you see where this is going?)
no they don't. good luck.