 |
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 |
Stros
If baseball and its voters start going another direction and enough start voting the proper way for MVP I could see a change being needed here. I want this to get as close to MLB as it can get, flawed or not (MLB) though. As it is Jeter still gets gold gloves and that is about flawed as it gets for awards.
I already see a change in CY voting the last few years, they finally started looking at numbers other than wins and that was the only way Greinke and King Felix could have won the award, under the "old" way Sabathia could have had a couple CY's to add to his trophy case (or maybe King Felix in 09).
December 10, 2010 at 09:17AM View BBCode
So the problem isn't with SD's MVP formula, it is with the voting for the MVP in MLB.If baseball and its voters start going another direction and enough start voting the proper way for MVP I could see a change being needed here. I want this to get as close to MLB as it can get, flawed or not (MLB) though. As it is Jeter still gets gold gloves and that is about flawed as it gets for awards.
I already see a change in CY voting the last few years, they finally started looking at numbers other than wins and that was the only way Greinke and King Felix could have won the award, under the "old" way Sabathia could have had a couple CY's to add to his trophy case (or maybe King Felix in 09).
dirtdevil
this is the heart of the issue right now, yes. that's very well said, actually.
the difficulty is that there are always going to be people who fall into one or more of:
1) they want the formula to give the award to the 'best' hitter, not the person who 'would' have won an mlb vote
2) they get so upset by the lack of 'fairness' involved in the position bonuses (there are more than just RF, as i think has been said) that they focus on that aspect rather than the fact that they are needed to make the formula achieve its stated goal. they would prefer that the formula produce the 'wrong' winner (in terms of an mlb vote) in a more 'logical' fashion than the 'right' winner in a less 'logical' way.
3) don't feel that mlb votes should apply to SD because of the low role played by defence here
4) their guy didn't win and they feel he should have (i know that hasn't been an issue in this thread, but trust me a lot of them start out that way)
[Edited on 12-10-2010 by dirtdevil]
December 10, 2010 at 02:29PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Stros
So the problem isn't with SD's MVP formula, it is with the voting for the MVP in MLB.
If baseball and its voters start going another direction and enough start voting the proper way for MVP I could see a change being needed here. I want this to get as close to MLB as it can get, flawed or not (MLB) though. As it is Jeter still gets gold gloves and that is about flawed as it gets for awards.
I already see a change in CY voting the last few years, they finally started looking at numbers other than wins and that was the only way Greinke and King Felix could have won the award, under the "old" way Sabathia could have had a couple CY's to add to his trophy case (or maybe King Felix in 09).
this is the heart of the issue right now, yes. that's very well said, actually.
the difficulty is that there are always going to be people who fall into one or more of:
1) they want the formula to give the award to the 'best' hitter, not the person who 'would' have won an mlb vote
2) they get so upset by the lack of 'fairness' involved in the position bonuses (there are more than just RF, as i think has been said) that they focus on that aspect rather than the fact that they are needed to make the formula achieve its stated goal. they would prefer that the formula produce the 'wrong' winner (in terms of an mlb vote) in a more 'logical' fashion than the 'right' winner in a less 'logical' way.
3) don't feel that mlb votes should apply to SD because of the low role played by defence here
4) their guy didn't win and they feel he should have (i know that hasn't been an issue in this thread, but trust me a lot of them start out that way)
[Edited on 12-10-2010 by dirtdevil]
thatrogue
I also don't understand why people continue to believe that supporters of the current formula think RF is more important. No one has ever expressed that on this site, and most people think that RF is no more important in real baseball or SD baseball. Supporters of the formula simply say that because it most accurately predicts past MVP award winners, and that is Tyson's stated goal, then it is the formula that should be used.
What people really want is for Tyson to no longer use a formula that tries to replicate historical MVP voting. Unfortunately, building a baseball simulation based on probabilities requires using non-arbitrary starting points. It requires the use of historical rates of production in designing the mechanism for determining in-game outcomes. If Tyson uses an MVP formula not based on anything, then he is arbitrarily determining what constitutes an MVP season, with no basis of support other than his own judgement. And, if you think the RF bonus opens up a can of worms...just wait and see what happens if Tyson switches to a non-defensible formula.
Has anyone presented examples of leagues in which RFs have won a disproportionate number of SD MVP awards that are significantly out of synch with historical MVP awards won by RFs?
December 10, 2010 at 03:43PM View BBCode
I don't think the formula predicts which SD players in a given league would have won real MLB MVP awards. As Tim says, we'll never know that...only the voters themselves know. The formula only serves as a predictor of past events, and, since it is the most accurate predictor developed thus far, it is used to assign the MVP award to players in SD.I also don't understand why people continue to believe that supporters of the current formula think RF is more important. No one has ever expressed that on this site, and most people think that RF is no more important in real baseball or SD baseball. Supporters of the formula simply say that because it most accurately predicts past MVP award winners, and that is Tyson's stated goal, then it is the formula that should be used.
What people really want is for Tyson to no longer use a formula that tries to replicate historical MVP voting. Unfortunately, building a baseball simulation based on probabilities requires using non-arbitrary starting points. It requires the use of historical rates of production in designing the mechanism for determining in-game outcomes. If Tyson uses an MVP formula not based on anything, then he is arbitrarily determining what constitutes an MVP season, with no basis of support other than his own judgement. And, if you think the RF bonus opens up a can of worms...just wait and see what happens if Tyson switches to a non-defensible formula.
Has anyone presented examples of leagues in which RFs have won a disproportionate number of SD MVP awards that are significantly out of synch with historical MVP awards won by RFs?
Kingturtle
December 10, 2010 at 06:28PM View BBCode
question: in what year (real time) was this MVP formula used by ABE constructed?
paulcaraccio
the RF bonus is the only illogical one. I haven't seen anyone complain about bonuses for C, SS, 2B, etc. that a voter might actually consider when voting. Someone at those positions with similar stats should get an edge over 1B and corner outfielders.
December 10, 2010 at 07:16PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
2) they get so upset by the lack of 'fairness' involved in the position bonuses (there are more than just RF, as i think has been said) that they focus on that aspect rather than the fact that they are needed to make the formula achieve its stated goal. they would prefer that the formula produce the 'wrong' winner (in terms of an mlb vote) in a more 'logical' fashion than the 'right' winner in a less 'logical' way.
[Edited on 12-10-2010 by dirtdevil]
the RF bonus is the only illogical one. I haven't seen anyone complain about bonuses for C, SS, 2B, etc. that a voter might actually consider when voting. Someone at those positions with similar stats should get an edge over 1B and corner outfielders.
Kingturtle
December 10, 2010 at 08:04PM View BBCode
if the formula was created in 2008, then it is fallacious to claim "The formula has predicted 25 of the last 30 MVPs correctly." You can't predict what has already happened, and you cannot claim that a formula crafted around particular data outcomes can then be used to predict those very data outcomes. only MVP awards that take place *after* the creation of the formula count as predictions. So that makes the formula 4 out of 4 or 6 out of 6?
thatrogue
It is semantics
December 10, 2010 at 09:36PM View BBCode
The goal was to create a formula that could mathematically determine who would win the MVP, and then see how many times the formula determined the same MVP as the BBWAA (both in the past and in the future). Perhaps the verbiage should have been "to create a formula that "selected" the correct MVP" as opposed to "predicted"...but that does not change what the formula is trying to accomplish.
WillyD
You're partially right, most of the supporters have not stated that RF is more important. Suprisingly though, the creator of the formula has argued many times that RF is more important than LF and 1B, even CF in one of the older threads. He claimed RF's were better all around players, athletes or some such nonsense.
December 11, 2010 at 02:22AM View BBCode
Originally posted by thatrogue
I also don't understand why people continue to believe that supporters of the current formula think RF is more important. No one has ever expressed that on this site, and most people think that RF is no more important in real baseball or SD baseball. Supporters of the formula simply say that because it most accurately predicts past MVP award winners, and that is Tyson's stated goal, then it is the formula that should be used.
You're partially right, most of the supporters have not stated that RF is more important. Suprisingly though, the creator of the formula has argued many times that RF is more important than LF and 1B, even CF in one of the older threads. He claimed RF's were better all around players, athletes or some such nonsense.
barterer2002
December 11, 2010 at 03:10AM View BBCode
I would continue to say that RF is more important than either LF or 1B. The guys who can't field worth a lick in MLB play 1B and LF never RF. Show me one RF who was known as a lousy fielder. Could you imagine Pat Burrell, Barry Bonds, Lonnie Smith, Ryan Howard, Carlos Pena or David Ortiz playing in RF? Yet pick out an RF and you can easily move them to LF or 1B
WillyD
December 11, 2010 at 05:08AM View BBCode
Reggie Jackson ring a bell? He had speed and a decent arm but was a horrible fielder. He had almost as many errors as assists many seasons. That's double digit errors multiple times. The guy took bad angles and dropped easy catches. He played a little CF in his career when he was young but just didn't have the fielding instincts needed.
tm4559
it would be even more difficult, no, to predict the future winners?
(LOL)
((don't drag funny semantics in here, ok? it is funny. a predictive model is founded on first trying to get it to give back the past results. of course the model does not "predict" the past. the idea is, the predictive power of a model is considered greater if it more accurately "predicts" the past .than a competing model does. that last part there also important. this is not about a model being perfect, that is never going to happen. its about choosing between this or that or another model.))
(((okay, i can't believe i just wrote that. you know why? because it is like stating, "the sun came up this morning." its true, but so obvious chimpanzees know it, and, could they read, would wonder why anyone would ever write it.)))
December 11, 2010 at 03:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Kingturtle
if the formula was created in 2008, then it is fallacious to claim "The formula has predicted 25 of the last 30 MVPs correctly." You can't predict what has already happened, and you cannot claim that a formula crafted around particular data outcomes can then be used to predict those very data outcomes. only MVP awards that take place *after* the creation of the formula count as predictions. So that makes the formula 4 out of 4 or 6 out of 6?
it would be even more difficult, no, to predict the future winners?
(LOL)
((don't drag funny semantics in here, ok? it is funny. a predictive model is founded on first trying to get it to give back the past results. of course the model does not "predict" the past. the idea is, the predictive power of a model is considered greater if it more accurately "predicts" the past .than a competing model does. that last part there also important. this is not about a model being perfect, that is never going to happen. its about choosing between this or that or another model.))
(((okay, i can't believe i just wrote that. you know why? because it is like stating, "the sun came up this morning." its true, but so obvious chimpanzees know it, and, could they read, would wonder why anyone would ever write it.)))