 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Tums, Mylanta, Immodium, heck, even the generic antacids are way better
happy
Lets do a hypothetical here because maybe this would explain my point.
Lets say that you realized that there was some particular formula for the MVP that produced even BETTER results than yours, but in this particular formula, the weight on singles was 1x, the weight on doubles was 25x, the weight on triples was 3x and the weight on home runs was 4x. Would you consider this formula flawed?
(If so, Do you see WHY?)
June 14, 2010 at 01:20PM View BBCode
Bart,Lets do a hypothetical here because maybe this would explain my point.
Lets say that you realized that there was some particular formula for the MVP that produced even BETTER results than yours, but in this particular formula, the weight on singles was 1x, the weight on doubles was 25x, the weight on triples was 3x and the weight on home runs was 4x. Would you consider this formula flawed?
(If so, Do you see WHY?)
barterer2002
If you think the bonus is too high that's one thing, if you think that RF is the same as 1B and LF then you're an idiot. RFs do tend to get more value in the minds of voters. Even Shep above, as he was dismissing the entire idea cited the arm of Clemente (which is a RF trait and not a LF trait and something that the voters look at).
Your analysis that says that LF and RF are the same thing is wrong they aren't. RF players tend to be better all around players than LF. LF is where you stick the slugger who can't field a lick. That isn't to say that you never get a decent left fielder (although they'll never have an arm there).
June 14, 2010 at 01:21PM View BBCode
Well your assumption is that RF and LF is identical which is a position that I reject as foolish. As long as you contend that then there isn't a discussion to be had.If you think the bonus is too high that's one thing, if you think that RF is the same as 1B and LF then you're an idiot. RFs do tend to get more value in the minds of voters. Even Shep above, as he was dismissing the entire idea cited the arm of Clemente (which is a RF trait and not a LF trait and something that the voters look at).
Your analysis that says that LF and RF are the same thing is wrong they aren't. RF players tend to be better all around players than LF. LF is where you stick the slugger who can't field a lick. That isn't to say that you never get a decent left fielder (although they'll never have an arm there).
happy
-My argument for the reason why this shouldnt be put in SimD even if this werent true is that rightfield and left field are the same in simdynasty, so for our purposes, you wouldnt convert this portion of the formula over, even if the "full" formula includes some slight rightfield bonus. (possible later hypothetical to expand, who knows?)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
June 14, 2010 at 01:25PM View BBCode
-My argument for MLB is that RF is less valuable than CF (and yet the CF bonus is smaller) (im hoping to expand on that on above hypothetical)-My argument for the reason why this shouldnt be put in SimD even if this werent true is that rightfield and left field are the same in simdynasty, so for our purposes, you wouldnt convert this portion of the formula over, even if the "full" formula includes some slight rightfield bonus. (possible later hypothetical to expand, who knows?)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
hayward
Small part of the game, but something I have noticed when watching games.
Situation: A player is on 3rd with no or 1 out only.
When does the fielder try and tag when the ball is hit to the OF?
I have seen it happen when the ball is hit to LF, but does it also occur when hit to CF and RF?
Here is an example of a game of mine that I recently watched.
http://www.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=17139334&cityid=9
Cincy's half of the 4th guy on 3rd fly out to RF, no tag play at all.
Brooklyn's half of the 8th, guy on 3rd fly out to LF tag play occured.
June 14, 2010 at 01:38PM View BBCode
Can I ask a question on this from a gameside point?Small part of the game, but something I have noticed when watching games.
Situation: A player is on 3rd with no or 1 out only.
When does the fielder try and tag when the ball is hit to the OF?
I have seen it happen when the ball is hit to LF, but does it also occur when hit to CF and RF?
Here is an example of a game of mine that I recently watched.
http://www.simdynasty.com/boxscore.jsp?boxscoreid=17139334&cityid=9
Cincy's half of the 4th guy on 3rd fly out to RF, no tag play at all.
Brooklyn's half of the 8th, guy on 3rd fly out to LF tag play occured.
tm4559
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6650700&statsorimps=fielding
and right field, this one (only one, these plays are very infrequent, which is why you have a hard time seeing them when you look at a few boxes)
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6841600&statsorimps=fielding
and left field
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=6964016
June 14, 2010 at 01:46PM View BBCode
hayward, there are, in fact, tag plays when the ball is hit to any field. this one played only centerfield last season, had three assists (the only assists the outfielders get are throwing to home on the sacrifice fly, the assists are the same as the double plays)http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6650700&statsorimps=fielding
and right field, this one (only one, these plays are very infrequent, which is why you have a hard time seeing them when you look at a few boxes)
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=6841600&statsorimps=fielding
and left field
http://simdynasty.com/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=6964016
hayward
LF tends to be the common place where CF/RF it does not.
June 14, 2010 at 01:50PM View BBCode
Yeah I have seen assists in the other fielders positions just never seem the play happen when watching.LF tends to be the common place where CF/RF it does not.
tm4559
i suspect hayward was trying to relate the whole right field/center field/left field thing to something concrete from gameside. instead of endlessly circling some silly wordsmithing about data mining and correlation and causation and all that (most everybody here knows all about this stuff and doesn't really care. you aren't the only one that took a few stats classes, ok? nobody cares.)
(seriously. let it go. it's boring.)
June 14, 2010 at 01:52PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
Wrong thread...?
i suspect hayward was trying to relate the whole right field/center field/left field thing to something concrete from gameside. instead of endlessly circling some silly wordsmithing about data mining and correlation and causation and all that (most everybody here knows all about this stuff and doesn't really care. you aren't the only one that took a few stats classes, ok? nobody cares.)
(seriously. let it go. it's boring.)
happy
so...yup. that happened.
Also tim, obviously not because there is still bad thinking about this, here, ill quote some to you.
June 14, 2010 at 01:57PM View BBCode
your team, the devil rays, the leftfielder has 1 assist in 5 years, the rightfielder has 4 assists in 4.5 years.so...yup. that happened.
Also tim, obviously not because there is still bad thinking about this, here, ill quote some to you.
Originally posted by tm4559
tweaking the runs created formula, for example, until it gives back the closest results to past results doesn't necessarily make it right either. but it does lend it credibility as a predictor.
in the same way, if you have to put postiional bonuses in the MVP formula to make it give back the closest to the past results, it doesn't make it right. but it does lend it credibilty as a predictor.
tm4559
like i said, your points are all perfectly obvious. and you should just drop it. because the whole discussion is boring. you say the same things over and over.
(the runs created formula for example. it predicts a certan number of runs from a certain combination of hits, home runs, walks, stolen bases, whatever. but the real life team might score exactly the number of runs the formula calls for the next year, but steal no bases, or hit no home runs, or whatever. the formula is more sound than the MVP formula, no doubt. but just because it is more sound does not mean it is absolutely perfect either. thats the whole point. bryan never said his formula was perfect.)
June 14, 2010 at 02:07PM View BBCode
yes, i posted that. from a certain perspective, the right field bonus might not make sense (i am pretty sure i conceded that). from the perspective that is made the formula pick the correct past winner, it makes some sense (not what i posted, the formula. if it picked correctly, then it picked correctly. whether it arrived at the correct result because the formula was sound is not the issue. the result is the issue).like i said, your points are all perfectly obvious. and you should just drop it. because the whole discussion is boring. you say the same things over and over.
(the runs created formula for example. it predicts a certan number of runs from a certain combination of hits, home runs, walks, stolen bases, whatever. but the real life team might score exactly the number of runs the formula calls for the next year, but steal no bases, or hit no home runs, or whatever. the formula is more sound than the MVP formula, no doubt. but just because it is more sound does not mean it is absolutely perfect either. thats the whole point. bryan never said his formula was perfect.)
happy
The results do not defend the formula. the results arent good enough, the sample size isnt big enough
June 14, 2010 at 02:16PM View BBCode
yes, the runs created formula is not absolutely perfect, nor is bart's formula. I dont really know why this matters. Runs created has fewer variables and a larger sample size, its going to be much less likely to need to be analyzed at some critical level, because something similar to my above hypothetical just plain wont happen and give even mediocre results in the Runs Created formula.The results do not defend the formula. the results arent good enough, the sample size isnt big enough
dirtdevil
actually, happy, your hypothetical explains everyone else point better than your. to whit: the formula would be flawed, yes. but because it produced better results in predicting mvp awards, it would be used anyway. that it the point. no one is trying to produce a statistically perfect formula. they are trying to produce one that works as best as possible. since we have to use something (there is an mvp here, after all, so we have to award it somehow), we will continue to use the best option we have until such a time as someone produces a better one. the actual mechanics of it matter not one little bit, so long as the results are there.
June 14, 2010 at 02:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
Bart,
Lets do a hypothetical here because maybe this would explain my point.
Lets say that you realized that there was some particular formula for the MVP that produced even BETTER results than yours, but in this particular formula, the weight on singles was 1x, the weight on doubles was 25x, the weight on triples was 3x and the weight on home runs was 4x. Would you consider this formula flawed?
(If so, Do you see WHY?)
actually, happy, your hypothetical explains everyone else point better than your. to whit: the formula would be flawed, yes. but because it produced better results in predicting mvp awards, it would be used anyway. that it the point. no one is trying to produce a statistically perfect formula. they are trying to produce one that works as best as possible. since we have to use something (there is an mvp here, after all, so we have to award it somehow), we will continue to use the best option we have until such a time as someone produces a better one. the actual mechanics of it matter not one little bit, so long as the results are there.
tworoosters
I know Strawberry played RF , I was citing two examples where LFers won over RFers with similar, or better, stats.
June 14, 2010 at 02:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
I would examine the NL 1988 MVP race (Gibson over Strawberry) or even the 1987 AL vote (Bell over Evans) for contrary arguments.
Originally posted by shep1582
Gibby had the underdog factor, much like a coach of the year. He was the only addition to a very mediocre team that pushed them to the top. Straw was part of a team that had a WS under their belt and was the odds on favorite to win it all. Gibson was viewed as the difference maker on the Dodgers.
And Straw played RF... stupid writers forgot to tack on the RF factor for him.
I know Strawberry played RF , I was citing two examples where LFers won over RFers with similar, or better, stats.
tm4559
June 14, 2010 at 02:50PM View BBCode
you little picture sold me. actuals. the yankees are now my favorite team.
dirtdevil
June 14, 2010 at 02:52PM View BBCode
you're not really though. they '87 AL race was between bell and trammell. evans was never a factor of any kind.
dirtdevil
June 14, 2010 at 02:53PM View BBCode
(also, bell had more hits, runs, hr, rbi and a higher avg and slg than evans. it woul be tough to make a case that evans should have won the award.)
dirtdevil
June 14, 2010 at 03:01PM View BBCode
no idea. you'd have to ask bart, i imagine. or happy.
tworoosters
Evans had a higher OBP by an obscene amount, and OPS and played right field, Bell's only clear advantage was in homers, plus I felt if bart could bring up Bob Cerv's 4th place finish in 1957 as credence for the RF bonus then Evan's 4th place finish was just as valid .
June 14, 2010 at 03:20PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
you're not really though. they '87 AL race was between bell and trammell. evans was never a factor of any kind.
Evans had a higher OBP by an obscene amount, and OPS and played right field, Bell's only clear advantage was in homers, plus I felt if bart could bring up Bob Cerv's 4th place finish in 1957 as credence for the RF bonus then Evan's 4th place finish was just as valid .
happy
!!
YOU WOULD USE A FORMULA THAT GIVES 25 POINTS FOR A DOUBLE AND 4 FOR A HOME RUN?
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
/thread
(OR DOES SOMEONE SEE A PROBLEM HERE?)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
June 14, 2010 at 03:24PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by happy
Bart,
Lets do a hypothetical here because maybe this would explain my point.
Lets say that you realized that there was some particular formula for the MVP that produced even BETTER results than yours, but in this particular formula, the weight on singles was 1x, the weight on doubles was 25x, the weight on triples was 3x and the weight on home runs was 4x. Would you consider this formula flawed?
(If so, Do you see WHY?)
actually, happy, your hypothetical explains everyone else point better than your. to whit: the formula would be flawed, yes. but because it produced better results in predicting mvp awards, it would be used anyway. that it the point. no one is trying to produce a statistically perfect formula. they are trying to produce one that works as best as possible. since we have to use something (there is an mvp here, after all, so we have to award it somehow), we will continue to use the best option we have until such a time as someone produces a better one. the actual mechanics of it matter not one little bit, so long as the results are there.
!!
YOU WOULD USE A FORMULA THAT GIVES 25 POINTS FOR A DOUBLE AND 4 FOR A HOME RUN?
Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
/thread
(OR DOES SOMEONE SEE A PROBLEM HERE?)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
barterer2002
Bell 1102
Evans 1138
Trammell 1139
After the other factors (including the position bonus)
Trammell 1738
Bell 1411
Evans 1028
Evans was as good as the other two offensively however he was on a team that went from the World Series in 1986 to 5th place in 1987.
June 14, 2010 at 04:05PM View BBCode
Ok so 1987 based on the raw numbers onlyBell 1102
Evans 1138
Trammell 1139
After the other factors (including the position bonus)
Trammell 1738
Bell 1411
Evans 1028
Evans was as good as the other two offensively however he was on a team that went from the World Series in 1986 to 5th place in 1987.
shep1582
I was agreeing with, and supporting, your premise, tr.
(the last line was facetiousness)
June 14, 2010 at 05:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tworoosters
Originally posted by tworoosters
I would examine the NL 1988 MVP race (Gibson over Strawberry) or even the 1987 AL vote (Bell over Evans) for contrary arguments.
Originally posted by shep1582
Gibby had the underdog factor, much like a coach of the year. He was the only addition to a very mediocre team that pushed them to the top. Straw was part of a team that had a WS under their belt and was the odds on favorite to win it all. Gibson was viewed as the difference maker on the Dodgers.
And Straw played RF... stupid writers forgot to tack on the RF factor for him.
I know Strawberry played RF , I was citing two examples where LFers won over RFers with similar, or better, stats.
I was agreeing with, and supporting, your premise, tr.
(the last line was facetiousness)
Hamilton2
This is why I completely support the formula as it is currently written and used. It has done a better job at predicting past winners of the MVP than any other formula has. I don't care whether the logic/reasoning behind it is completely off the wall. The goal is to give back results that fit the pattern of previous MVP winners accurately. What Bart has done here is to be applauded. I don't see anyone else proposing an alternative formula which is more accurate (or even AS accurate).
June 14, 2010 at 05:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Ok so 1987 based on the raw numbers only
Bell 1102
Evans 1138
Trammell 1139
After the other factors (including the position bonus)
Trammell 1738
Bell 1411
Evans 1028
Evans was as good as the other two offensively however he was on a team that went from the World Series in 1986 to 5th place in 1987.
This is why I completely support the formula as it is currently written and used. It has done a better job at predicting past winners of the MVP than any other formula has. I don't care whether the logic/reasoning behind it is completely off the wall. The goal is to give back results that fit the pattern of previous MVP winners accurately. What Bart has done here is to be applauded. I don't see anyone else proposing an alternative formula which is more accurate (or even AS accurate).
tworoosters
June 14, 2010 at 05:28PM View BBCode
You are aware Hammy that Trammell did not win the MVP in '87 right ?
Hamilton2
But the issue at hand is the RF bonus. Which did NOT result in Evans over Bell, which was the specific challenge being raised.
I find it odd that, in this instance, the formula fails to predict the winner (Bell) over the loser (Trammell) but the "flaw" is not in the RF bonus, which is the only thing about the formula that any of us complain about.
(There are something like 6 total MVP's that the formula has "missed" in the past 50 years. '87 happens to be one of them, but not for the reason that we object to the formula. LOL irony)
June 14, 2010 at 05:32PM View BBCode
Yes. I am.But the issue at hand is the RF bonus. Which did NOT result in Evans over Bell, which was the specific challenge being raised.
I find it odd that, in this instance, the formula fails to predict the winner (Bell) over the loser (Trammell) but the "flaw" is not in the RF bonus, which is the only thing about the formula that any of us complain about.
(There are something like 6 total MVP's that the formula has "missed" in the past 50 years. '87 happens to be one of them, but not for the reason that we object to the formula. LOL irony)