 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » RED SOX LOSE
khazim
except it completely negates any aspect of team chemistry. Sometimes, it's the team proving the manager wrong/hating the manager (See Billy Martin managed teams). Other times, it's a bunch of kids who don't believe they're supposed to lose to superior talent. Other times, it's the team getting hot at the same time.
It's an "it" factor. How do you quantify a subjective observation?
October 22, 2008 at 08:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Happy is very correct regarding football and baseball being fundamentally different sports and necessitating a complete negation of any conclusions drawn based upon a false comparison of their respective merits. (That is, football does not equal baseball.)
Team chemistry is a funny thing. It exists, but it doesn't really matter.
Nice point about the double plays, Happy.
except it completely negates any aspect of team chemistry. Sometimes, it's the team proving the manager wrong/hating the manager (See Billy Martin managed teams). Other times, it's a bunch of kids who don't believe they're supposed to lose to superior talent. Other times, it's the team getting hot at the same time.
It's an "it" factor. How do you quantify a subjective observation?
happy
October 22, 2008 at 08:49PM View BBCode
it either doesnt exist as a factor at all, or is negligible. but who cares which one is true?
ScooterPie
scooter
October 22, 2008 at 11:23PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazimPlease use a google to find the phrase "The Fielding Bible." Report back to us. In your report, it is up to you whether to liken that system to our very own +/- here in Sim Dynasty.
so you're thinking to set up a matrix that rewards getting to more difficult balls (down the line, in the gap) and penalizes missing "easy to field" balls (the Bill Buckner ground ball, Fly balls to the outfield that aren't in a gap or down the line). Also one that defines balls by their trajectory off the bat (bunt, pop up, fly ball, ground ball, and line drive) and speed off the bat (slow, medium, fast).
scooter
khazim
automatically I'd have to say "no", as my largest complaint about the +/- system is the it is too nebulous.
October 23, 2008 at 12:55AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ScooterPie
Originally posted by khazimPlease use a google to find the phrase "The Fielding Bible." Report back to us. In your report, it is up to you whether to liken that system to our very own +/- here in Sim Dynasty.
so you're thinking to set up a matrix that rewards getting to more difficult balls (down the line, in the gap) and penalizes missing "easy to field" balls (the Bill Buckner ground ball, Fly balls to the outfield that aren't in a gap or down the line). Also one that defines balls by their trajectory off the bat (bunt, pop up, fly ball, ground ball, and line drive) and speed off the bat (slow, medium, fast).
scooter
automatically I'd have to say "no", as my largest complaint about the +/- system is the it is too nebulous.
barterer2002
October 23, 2008 at 03:09AM View BBCode
Could you refine that comment down a bit please
Duff77
October 23, 2008 at 06:23AM View BBCode
If anyone was wondering, I made that saber comment knowing it would piss someone off.
Hamilton2
(I see what you did there. And I like it.)
October 23, 2008 at 06:26AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Duff77
If anyone was wondering, I made that saber comment knowing it would piss someone off.
(I see what you did there. And I like it.)
khazim
Could you refine that comment down a bit please [/quote]
The statistic does not lend itself to ease of understanding.
If you tell someone the batting average of a player, most folks who has a passing knowledge of the game would immediately be able to ascertain whether or not the player is a good hitter.
the plus/minus rating does not lend itself to either ease of understanding or ease of use in other statistical calculations.
If fielding percentage (which is easy to understand) were used in conjunction with a weighted fielding percentage (think of slugging percentage) in a combined fashion (think along the lines of OPS), then you would have a statistic that passes both tests.
Along these lines, if I were to give you the following information, what could you discern about the player?
SS Bob
Fielding PCT: .987, +/-: -2, RF: 5.47
Now contrast that with:
Fielding PCT .987, Weighted Fld pct: 1.103, RF: 5.47
What can you say about SS bob in both situations?
October 23, 2008 at 12:47PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by barterer2002[/i]
Could you refine that comment down a bit please [/quote]
The statistic does not lend itself to ease of understanding.
If you tell someone the batting average of a player, most folks who has a passing knowledge of the game would immediately be able to ascertain whether or not the player is a good hitter.
the plus/minus rating does not lend itself to either ease of understanding or ease of use in other statistical calculations.
If fielding percentage (which is easy to understand) were used in conjunction with a weighted fielding percentage (think of slugging percentage) in a combined fashion (think along the lines of OPS), then you would have a statistic that passes both tests.
Along these lines, if I were to give you the following information, what could you discern about the player?
SS Bob
Fielding PCT: .987, +/-: -2, RF: 5.47
Now contrast that with:
Fielding PCT .987, Weighted Fld pct: 1.103, RF: 5.47
What can you say about SS bob in both situations?
barterer2002
October 23, 2008 at 01:19PM View BBCode
Alright lets dive into this. Is it necessary for a casual fan to understand the number for it to be valid. I would suspect that most casual fans don't have a frame of reference for OPS yet its a completely viable stat. +/- is even easier to understand. +30 is great. +10 is good 0 is average -10 is bad -30 is a butcher
dirtdevil
October 23, 2008 at 01:23PM View BBCode
i have to agree with bart. +/- is probably the single most easily understood stat that we have. your calculation may well be a better measure. i have no idea, and little interest in trying to figure it out. but anytime you get into using weighted measures, you've lost ease of understanding right from the get-go.
khazim
What sort of average? 0 can just as easily mean "he makes all the easy plays and none of the hard plays" as it does "WOW! What an amazing player, but sometimes he boots easy balls"
That, to me is the problem. The closer you get to a 0, the less accurate a statistic it is.
October 23, 2008 at 01:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Alright lets dive into this. Is it necessary for a casual fan to understand the number for it to be valid. I would suspect that most casual fans don't have a frame of reference for OPS yet its a completely viable stat. +/- is even easier to understand. +30 is great. +10 is good 0 is average -10 is bad -30 is a butcher
What sort of average? 0 can just as easily mean "he makes all the easy plays and none of the hard plays" as it does "WOW! What an amazing player, but sometimes he boots easy balls"
That, to me is the problem. The closer you get to a 0, the less accurate a statistic it is.
dirtdevil
what difference does it make? the end result is the same. he'll make the same number of plays in the same number of chances as the average player at his position. the hows and whys don't make a whole lot of difference in the outcome, really.
October 23, 2008 at 01:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
What sort of average? 0 can just as easily mean "he makes all the easy plays and none of the hard plays" as it does "WOW! What an amazing player, but sometimes he boots easy balls"
what difference does it make? the end result is the same. he'll make the same number of plays in the same number of chances as the average player at his position. the hows and whys don't make a whole lot of difference in the outcome, really.
barterer2002
October 23, 2008 at 01:46PM View BBCode
Its like saying that there is a difference between an infield single and a single off the outfield wall. Both affect the batting average (and the slugging average and all the other pertinent stats) the same.
khazim
from a player performance standpoint, there is. One is Juan Pierre. The other is John Kruk.
October 23, 2008 at 03:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Its like saying that there is a difference between an infield single and a single off the outfield wall. Both affect the batting average (and the slugging average and all the other pertinent stats) the same.
from a player performance standpoint, there is. One is Juan Pierre. The other is John Kruk.
happy
so are you suggesting a weighted batting average where it is affected by how far it was hit?
>_<
October 23, 2008 at 06:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
Originally posted by barterer2002
Its like saying that there is a difference between an infield single and a single off the outfield wall. Both affect the batting average (and the slugging average and all the other pertinent stats) the same.
from a player performance standpoint, there is. One is Juan Pierre. The other is John Kruk.
so are you suggesting a weighted batting average where it is affected by how far it was hit?
>_<
happy
no. Did you read benne's article?
Thats the point. EVERYTHING is argued away based off of chemistry. You see the result, and then make a conclusion based off of the result. You arent subjectively analyzing what is happening, you are making a conclusion based off the result, evne though you cant actually judge whether or not the chemistry is good without knowing the result prior to your decision.
There is "good chemistry" -- Rays. "good bad chemistry" -- (some team that gets along and is too compacent to try, or "the coach is too soft."). "bad good chemistry" -- (billy martin). "bad bad chemistry" -- (Giants with Bonds).
And all of this is completely based off of you looking at the results and then retroactively determining how good the chemistry was.
News flash: Billy Martin's teams would have been good if they didnt have a manager AT ALL. News flash: The rays would be good if I was managing them. News flash: The giants got WORSE when bonds left the team.
October 23, 2008 at 06:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Happy is very correct regarding football and baseball being fundamentally different sports and necessitating a complete negation of any conclusions drawn based upon a false comparison of their respective merits. (That is, football does not equal baseball.)
Team chemistry is a funny thing. It exists, but it doesn't really matter.
Nice point about the double plays, Happy.
except it completely negates any aspect of team chemistry. Sometimes, it's the team proving the manager wrong/hating the manager (See Billy Martin managed teams). Other times, it's a bunch of kids who don't believe they're supposed to lose to superior talent. Other times, it's the team getting hot at the same time.
It's an "it" factor. How do you quantify a subjective observation?
no. Did you read benne's article?
Thats the point. EVERYTHING is argued away based off of chemistry. You see the result, and then make a conclusion based off of the result. You arent subjectively analyzing what is happening, you are making a conclusion based off the result, evne though you cant actually judge whether or not the chemistry is good without knowing the result prior to your decision.
There is "good chemistry" -- Rays. "good bad chemistry" -- (some team that gets along and is too compacent to try, or "the coach is too soft."). "bad good chemistry" -- (billy martin). "bad bad chemistry" -- (Giants with Bonds).
And all of this is completely based off of you looking at the results and then retroactively determining how good the chemistry was.
News flash: Billy Martin's teams would have been good if they didnt have a manager AT ALL. News flash: The rays would be good if I was managing them. News flash: The giants got WORSE when bonds left the team.
dirtdevil
there isn't actually. one is a guy who's just hit an infield single. the other is a guy who's just singled off the OF wall. that is the entirety of it. what you're doing is taking one event and extrapolating it into other ideas you have about performance. juan pierre is a guy who hits a LOT of infield singles and other various forms of popgun offence. john kruk had more power than pierre, in the form of home runs and (presumably) doubles. this is covered by an entirely different stat, slugging percentage. it has no (statistical) effect on how many hits either man had.
October 23, 2008 at 06:43PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
Originally posted by barterer2002
Its like saying that there is a difference between an infield single and a single off the outfield wall. Both affect the batting average (and the slugging average and all the other pertinent stats) the same.
from a player performance standpoint, there is. One is Juan Pierre. The other is John Kruk.
there isn't actually. one is a guy who's just hit an infield single. the other is a guy who's just singled off the OF wall. that is the entirety of it. what you're doing is taking one event and extrapolating it into other ideas you have about performance. juan pierre is a guy who hits a LOT of infield singles and other various forms of popgun offence. john kruk had more power than pierre, in the form of home runs and (presumably) doubles. this is covered by an entirely different stat, slugging percentage. it has no (statistical) effect on how many hits either man had.
khazim
this is like saying Jeter diving into the stands making a catch and Rollins settling under an infield fly are the same thing, defensively speaking. Even the +/- statistic acknowledges that they're different.
October 23, 2008 at 07:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by khazim
Originally posted by barterer2002
Its like saying that there is a difference between an infield single and a single off the outfield wall. Both affect the batting average (and the slugging average and all the other pertinent stats) the same.
from a player performance standpoint, there is. One is Juan Pierre. The other is John Kruk.
there isn't actually. one is a guy who's just hit an infield single. the other is a guy who's just singled off the OF wall. that is the entirety of it. what you're doing is taking one event and extrapolating it into other ideas you have about performance. juan pierre is a guy who hits a LOT of infield singles and other various forms of popgun offence. john kruk had more power than pierre, in the form of home runs and (presumably) doubles. this is covered by an entirely different stat, slugging percentage. it has no (statistical) effect on how many hits either man had.
this is like saying Jeter diving into the stands making a catch and Rollins settling under an infield fly are the same thing, defensively speaking. Even the +/- statistic acknowledges that they're different.
Hamilton2
Well, I must say that this is true.
WHICH IS THE POINT.
The +/- stat already does this, why are you trying to re-invent the wheel?
October 23, 2008 at 08:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
this is like saying Jeter diving into the stands making a catch and Rollins settling under an infield fly are the same thing, defensively speaking. Even the +/- statistic acknowledges that they're different.
Well, I must say that this is true.
WHICH IS THE POINT.
The +/- stat already does this, why are you trying to re-invent the wheel?
khazim
because the closer that stat is to being 0, the less reflective it is of the player. It's simple math. A player who has made every play they were supposed to make and made no plays they weren't supposed to make (compared within position) the whole season is considered identical to a player who makes amazing plays followed by boneheaded plays. To not acknowledge there is a significant difference between the two, defensively, is missing an important player attribute.
October 23, 2008 at 08:20PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Originally posted by khazim
this is like saying Jeter diving into the stands making a catch and Rollins settling under an infield fly are the same thing, defensively speaking. Even the +/- statistic acknowledges that they're different.
Well, I must say that this is true.
WHICH IS THE POINT.
The +/- stat already does this, why are you trying to re-invent the wheel?
because the closer that stat is to being 0, the less reflective it is of the player. It's simple math. A player who has made every play they were supposed to make and made no plays they weren't supposed to make (compared within position) the whole season is considered identical to a player who makes amazing plays followed by boneheaded plays. To not acknowledge there is a significant difference between the two, defensively, is missing an important player attribute.
Hamilton2
Now introducing: The FIELDING PERCENTAGE. Which is reflective of the % of ball that the player reached and botched.
The average defender who makes every play he is supposed to make and doesn't make any spectacular ones, ends up a quite solid .995 with a 0 +/- number.
The spasmodal defender who makes a handful of amazing plays followed by a handful of completely botched plays ends up with a .990 % (more botched plays = more errors) and a 0 +/- number.
This really isn't very complex, Khaz.
October 23, 2008 at 08:32PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Originally posted by khazim
this is like saying Jeter diving into the stands making a catch and Rollins settling under an infield fly are the same thing, defensively speaking. Even the +/- statistic acknowledges that they're different.
Well, I must say that this is true.
WHICH IS THE POINT.
The +/- stat already does this, why are you trying to re-invent the wheel?
because the closer that stat is to being 0, the less reflective it is of the player. It's simple math. A player who has made every play they were supposed to make and made no plays they weren't supposed to make (compared within position) the whole season is considered identical to a player who makes amazing plays followed by boneheaded plays. To not acknowledge there is a significant difference between the two, defensively, is missing an important player attribute.
Now introducing: The FIELDING PERCENTAGE. Which is reflective of the % of ball that the player reached and botched.
The average defender who makes every play he is supposed to make and doesn't make any spectacular ones, ends up a quite solid .995 with a 0 +/- number.
The spasmodal defender who makes a handful of amazing plays followed by a handful of completely botched plays ends up with a .990 % (more botched plays = more errors) and a 0 +/- number.
This really isn't very complex, Khaz.
dirtdevil
but there is no difference between the two, statistically, in terms of +/-. just like there is no difference in the batting average of two players with 200 hits in 600 at bats. the fact that one guy has 170 singles, 25 doubles and 5 triples and the other guy has 100 singles, 50 doubles, 5 triples and 45 home runs has no effect on their batting average. we would never use batting average alone to determine the worth of a hitter, so why should one fielding stat be used to determine the total defensive worth of a fielder? if in your example defender A has 3 errors and a RF of 4.0 while defender B has 17 errors and a RF of 6.0, doesn't that pretty much tell the tale you're looking to present, in the same way that SLG and OPS would differentiate between the two hitters in my example?
October 23, 2008 at 08:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by khazim
It's simple math. A player who has made every play they were supposed to make and made no plays they weren't supposed to make (compared within position) the whole season is considered identical to a player who makes amazing plays followed by boneheaded plays. To not acknowledge there is a significant difference between the two, defensively, is missing an important player attribute.
but there is no difference between the two, statistically, in terms of +/-. just like there is no difference in the batting average of two players with 200 hits in 600 at bats. the fact that one guy has 170 singles, 25 doubles and 5 triples and the other guy has 100 singles, 50 doubles, 5 triples and 45 home runs has no effect on their batting average. we would never use batting average alone to determine the worth of a hitter, so why should one fielding stat be used to determine the total defensive worth of a fielder? if in your example defender A has 3 errors and a RF of 4.0 while defender B has 17 errors and a RF of 6.0, doesn't that pretty much tell the tale you're looking to present, in the same way that SLG and OPS would differentiate between the two hitters in my example?
barterer2002
In the end the players who get to 0 on his +/- has contributed nothing and cost nothing in that particular area and it doesn't matter if he played steady or if he had herculean feats of Thronberryesque fielding to get there.
October 23, 2008 at 08:54PM View BBCode
Different stats show different parts of what the players are. Your complaint about +/- not showing the difference between a guy who makes neither great plays nor bad ones and one who makes good and bad plays in an equal amount is very similar to someone complaining that Batting Average doesn't show the difference between a guy who hits 10 home runs, 20 doubles and 180 hits in 600 at bats and a guy who hits 40 home runs 10 triples, 40 doubles and 180 total hits in 600 at bats. They show a portion of what the player is doing but clearly not everything. For the batter you need to look at slugging to get a better picture, in fielding you need to look at the fielding average to see who's booting the plays.In the end the players who get to 0 on his +/- has contributed nothing and cost nothing in that particular area and it doesn't matter if he played steady or if he had herculean feats of Thronberryesque fielding to get there.