 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » RED SOX LOSE
khazim
okay, I get what you;'re saying. I suppose what I really would like is statistical parity between Pitching and Batting stats and fielding stats.
For batting, we can look at three stats and get a great idea on how good of a batter they are:
Batting average, Slugging percentage, and On Base Percentage (or OPS, if it works better for you). There are also a bazillion secondary stats along with Sabermetric stats that can even more clearly define the offensive prowess of a batter. This is due to the larger number of measured aspects of offense.
For pitchers, it is:
ERA, WHIP, and K/BB. Again, though, there are many, many more measured aspects when it comes to pitching.
For Fielding, excepting specialty stats (DPs, CS%), only has 3 measures of performance: FLD%, +/- rating, and Range Factor. Beyond these three, there aren't many statistics due to the low number of aspects of how a player performs on defense.
Would there be any other items on defense that could be measured for an individual player? If so, what are they. In the end, might they have some measure of importance?
October 24, 2008 at 03:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
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.
okay, I get what you;'re saying. I suppose what I really would like is statistical parity between Pitching and Batting stats and fielding stats.
For batting, we can look at three stats and get a great idea on how good of a batter they are:
Batting average, Slugging percentage, and On Base Percentage (or OPS, if it works better for you). There are also a bazillion secondary stats along with Sabermetric stats that can even more clearly define the offensive prowess of a batter. This is due to the larger number of measured aspects of offense.
For pitchers, it is:
ERA, WHIP, and K/BB. Again, though, there are many, many more measured aspects when it comes to pitching.
For Fielding, excepting specialty stats (DPs, CS%), only has 3 measures of performance: FLD%, +/- rating, and Range Factor. Beyond these three, there aren't many statistics due to the low number of aspects of how a player performs on defense.
Would there be any other items on defense that could be measured for an individual player? If so, what are they. In the end, might they have some measure of importance?
happy
October 25, 2008 at 05:02AM View BBCode
There have been a lot of stats. everyone knows its weak. This is the one times when scouts matter...
khazim
Put outs
Assists
Errors
Innings
+/-
and that's it. Every other fielding stat (non specialty) is based off the first four of these stats. Basically, in this simulation, there aren't really any other defensive stats that could be measured, are there?
Edit: i can't count.
[Edited on 10-28-2008 by khazim]
October 28, 2008 at 06:33PM View BBCode
What fielding stats are currently measured in Sim D?Put outs
Assists
Errors
Innings
+/-
and that's it. Every other fielding stat (non specialty) is based off the first four of these stats. Basically, in this simulation, there aren't really any other defensive stats that could be measured, are there?
Edit: i can't count.
[Edited on 10-28-2008 by khazim]
khazim
October 29, 2008 at 12:35PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Beyond trying to weight the +/- score, Errors, DPs, PB, SB, and CS into some sort of composite fielding rating, there isn't much one could do.
happy
October 29, 2008 at 03:48PM View BBCode
well certain things will help you against certain teams of course. that 100 arm catcher might be more valuable than the 100 range SS against a team full of fast people.
khazim
but the 100 range SS will stop infield singles from becoming doubles. They all have an inherent value.
October 29, 2008 at 04:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
well certain things will help you against certain teams of course. that 100 arm catcher might be more valuable than the 100 range SS against a team full of fast people.
but the 100 range SS will stop infield singles from becoming doubles. They all have an inherent value.
happy
October 29, 2008 at 05:47PM View BBCode
yes, im just saying a "composite" score wouldnt totally work.
khazim
I'm going to crunch numbers and see what they look like, but weighting the values, to me, would be the difficult part.
October 29, 2008 at 06:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
yes, im just saying a "composite" score wouldnt totally work.
I'm going to crunch numbers and see what they look like, but weighting the values, to me, would be the difficult part.
khazim
(Total catches + (plus-minus score*2)-(Errors*1.5)+(Double Plays)-(Stolen Bases*.33)+Caught Stealing)/Total Catches
We'll use [url=http://209.51.170.76/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=4641966]Jewel Kenmer[/url] and compare him with [url=http://209.51.170.76/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=4700523]Billy Idol[/url]
Both are Shortstops and were the everyday player for that position, so we can legitimately compare them.
Jewel Kenmer had 711 Total Catches, rated a +10 on the +/- scale, committed 3 errors, and was involved with 101 Double Plays. He had a fielding percentage of .996
Billy Idol had 634 Total Catches, rated a +21 on the +/- scale, committed 4 errors, and was involved with 86 Double Plays. He had a fielding percentage of .994
Using the weighted formula (again, it's very rough), we woudl see that Kenmer, in spite of having a slightly better slightly better fielding percentage and being in on 15 more double plays, comes out just second to Billy Idol in terms of fielding.
Billy Idol ends up with a Weighted Fielding score of 1.186 and Kenmer has a weighted score of 1.160.
The question is: Is this of any value?
October 31, 2008 at 06:58PM View BBCode
okay... here's what I'm working with and it's extremely rough.(Total catches + (plus-minus score*2)-(Errors*1.5)+(Double Plays)-(Stolen Bases*.33)+Caught Stealing)/Total Catches
We'll use [url=http://209.51.170.76/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=4641966]Jewel Kenmer[/url] and compare him with [url=http://209.51.170.76/player.jsp?statsorimps=fielding&id=4700523]Billy Idol[/url]
Both are Shortstops and were the everyday player for that position, so we can legitimately compare them.
Jewel Kenmer had 711 Total Catches, rated a +10 on the +/- scale, committed 3 errors, and was involved with 101 Double Plays. He had a fielding percentage of .996
Billy Idol had 634 Total Catches, rated a +21 on the +/- scale, committed 4 errors, and was involved with 86 Double Plays. He had a fielding percentage of .994
Using the weighted formula (again, it's very rough), we woudl see that Kenmer, in spite of having a slightly better slightly better fielding percentage and being in on 15 more double plays, comes out just second to Billy Idol in terms of fielding.
Billy Idol ends up with a Weighted Fielding score of 1.186 and Kenmer has a weighted score of 1.160.
The question is: Is this of any value?
happy
November 01, 2008 at 08:01PM View BBCode
Right, chances would be what you would divide the score by. Chances are completely luck based in SimD, so the extra chances dont indicate a higher range, only +/- does. at least thats how I understand it.