 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Tums, Mylanta, Immodium, heck, even the generic antacids are way better
shep1582
I will begin by stating, emphatically, that I am trying to be constructive here, and that I will try NOT to write a book about this.
1) My premise is that the voting record by the BBWA in awards is not stellar. I ask why do we mirror them? The response is always "just because we want to emulate MLB." I think that is the wrong way to go. To emulate MLB in the way the game is played is grand. To emulate the writers, who have been wrong so many times, is not grand.
2) The RF bias (which I don't agree exists, even in MLB) is because great players have played on great teams and they played RF. The voting I have seen DOES NOT SHOW that RFers have any significant edge because they played RF. I agree that RFers are generally better fielders than LFers... IN MLB. That is not true in the sim, however. At least not in any meaningful way. Certainly, comparing two guys like Luzinski and Dawson, having similar hitting seasons, as a voter I would look at defensive stats to separate the two. One guy could handle CF if need be, the other should be a DH. But that's not a RF bias, that's a decision based on looking at their defensive prowess. Give a RFer an edge over a LFer only if he has a defensive edge, not just because of position. Until RFers in the sim can have 15-20 assists, and LFers 3-4, no such advantage exists. I don't think we should attribute things in MLB to sim players if those things do not exist in the sim.
3) Baseball is not a holy sacrament, and to cling tightly to all that is MLB is superstition. We are not MLB. Our game IS different. Contrary to what some have said here, we DO know what the writers were thinking, because they've said so. They write books and articles, and they appear on talk shows stating why they gave this guy a vote over another. Never, ever, have I heard a guy say that he voted for a player because he played RF. If they don't state a bias, why do we attribute one? I see them saying things like leadership and clutch and baserunning, etc that gave one player the edge. We don't have that in the sim, bits of code do not have personalities. We do have mentoring grades, which are supposed to reflect a positive effect on the team, which it does when developing young players. Why not use that instead of a bogus RF bonus? Give the player the exact # grade of his mentor score. If a player is an A+ mentor, give him 100 points. If he's a B-, he gets 60 (or whatever his # is).
4) Until the late '70's, most awards were based on triple crown stats, and wins for SPs. While some writers still refuse to fully understand baseball stats and what they mean, that is changing. I believe we should join the information age and adjust our formulas to what we know now, and away from what the dunderheads of the BBWA think. Using the votes of the writers from the 30's, etc, as a blueprint makes no sense.
5) I would propose using a multi-formula: use the BBWA formula as 1/2, and a Win Shares formula as 1/2. Add the two together, and get a consensus pick.
6) The same goes for the FOY. To base it entirely on the Tums award does not identify the best RP. Let's do a BETTER job the Pepto Bismol does in handing out the award. (I know, I know, we want to mirror MLB.)
June 14, 2010 at 05:54PM View BBCode
*sigh*I will begin by stating, emphatically, that I am trying to be constructive here, and that I will try NOT to write a book about this.
1) My premise is that the voting record by the BBWA in awards is not stellar. I ask why do we mirror them? The response is always "just because we want to emulate MLB." I think that is the wrong way to go. To emulate MLB in the way the game is played is grand. To emulate the writers, who have been wrong so many times, is not grand.
2) The RF bias (which I don't agree exists, even in MLB) is because great players have played on great teams and they played RF. The voting I have seen DOES NOT SHOW that RFers have any significant edge because they played RF. I agree that RFers are generally better fielders than LFers... IN MLB. That is not true in the sim, however. At least not in any meaningful way. Certainly, comparing two guys like Luzinski and Dawson, having similar hitting seasons, as a voter I would look at defensive stats to separate the two. One guy could handle CF if need be, the other should be a DH. But that's not a RF bias, that's a decision based on looking at their defensive prowess. Give a RFer an edge over a LFer only if he has a defensive edge, not just because of position. Until RFers in the sim can have 15-20 assists, and LFers 3-4, no such advantage exists. I don't think we should attribute things in MLB to sim players if those things do not exist in the sim.
3) Baseball is not a holy sacrament, and to cling tightly to all that is MLB is superstition. We are not MLB. Our game IS different. Contrary to what some have said here, we DO know what the writers were thinking, because they've said so. They write books and articles, and they appear on talk shows stating why they gave this guy a vote over another. Never, ever, have I heard a guy say that he voted for a player because he played RF. If they don't state a bias, why do we attribute one? I see them saying things like leadership and clutch and baserunning, etc that gave one player the edge. We don't have that in the sim, bits of code do not have personalities. We do have mentoring grades, which are supposed to reflect a positive effect on the team, which it does when developing young players. Why not use that instead of a bogus RF bonus? Give the player the exact # grade of his mentor score. If a player is an A+ mentor, give him 100 points. If he's a B-, he gets 60 (or whatever his # is).
4) Until the late '70's, most awards were based on triple crown stats, and wins for SPs. While some writers still refuse to fully understand baseball stats and what they mean, that is changing. I believe we should join the information age and adjust our formulas to what we know now, and away from what the dunderheads of the BBWA think. Using the votes of the writers from the 30's, etc, as a blueprint makes no sense.
5) I would propose using a multi-formula: use the BBWA formula as 1/2, and a Win Shares formula as 1/2. Add the two together, and get a consensus pick.
6) The same goes for the FOY. To base it entirely on the Tums award does not identify the best RP. Let's do a BETTER job the Pepto Bismol does in handing out the award. (I know, I know, we want to mirror MLB.)
shep1582
but not because he played RF. and not because he played on a winner (he played on a terrible team).
it was because he hit 49 HRs and drove in 137 runs. he hit .287, which is misleading, because he OBP'd .328. He didn't get on very often, but the friendly confines were berry berry good to him. the writers overlooked gwynn's .370, Murphy's 44 HRs and a much better OBP, and Michael Jack had a much better season, as well.
it was a bad decision in the NL that season. let's stop predicting what bad decision the BBWA would make, and start awarding it to the best player.
June 14, 2010 at 06:05PM View BBCode
hammy. dawson, a RF, won in '87.but not because he played RF. and not because he played on a winner (he played on a terrible team).
it was because he hit 49 HRs and drove in 137 runs. he hit .287, which is misleading, because he OBP'd .328. He didn't get on very often, but the friendly confines were berry berry good to him. the writers overlooked gwynn's .370, Murphy's 44 HRs and a much better OBP, and Michael Jack had a much better season, as well.
it was a bad decision in the NL that season. let's stop predicting what bad decision the BBWA would make, and start awarding it to the best player.
happy
I try and try and try to tell you all, that is a terrible stance to take.
I agree. I think there is exactly one thing that I have a problem with in the formula, because it is the only egregiously wrong thing in the formula. Aristotle was pretty damn smart and did a lot of great stuff, but heavier objects just plain dont fall faster.
also, can I say here that I am not exactly on the same page as shep (I understand you are tryin to simulate MLB, and whether or not you should is a subjective argument, not an objective one, so although I agree with him, I accept that most others including tyson have a different opinion, and thats quite alright, so ive moved on from that whole thing.)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
June 14, 2010 at 06:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
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.
I try and try and try to tell you all, that is a terrible stance to take.
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).
I agree. I think there is exactly one thing that I have a problem with in the formula, because it is the only egregiously wrong thing in the formula. Aristotle was pretty damn smart and did a lot of great stuff, but heavier objects just plain dont fall faster.
also, can I say here that I am not exactly on the same page as shep (I understand you are tryin to simulate MLB, and whether or not you should is a subjective argument, not an objective one, so although I agree with him, I accept that most others including tyson have a different opinion, and thats quite alright, so ive moved on from that whole thing.)
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
shep1582
here's the other problem, happy. the BBWA do not have, or use, a formula. I at least understand what Mylanta does, even if I think it's stupid.
My opinion of the MVP awards is different than bart's. bart sees a RF bias, I do not. He is making a subjective conclusion, not an objective one. The fact of the matter is, LFers win it just as often as RFers. That is a fact. So bart is making an objective mistake, as well.
And hammy, I have proposed formulas before, and offered them here. the only person here who has not, is you.
We are not emulating MLB when it comes to the awards. We are emulating the BBWA (and misinterpreting their results). They are not MLB employees. They were given this vote way back when because they were the only media there was. The AP gives awards, TSN gives awards. Why not incorporate their voting prefs along with the BBWA?
All stars... we don't let fans vote. Why don't the owners vote as a proxy for the fans? The fact of the matter is, we do not emulate MLB in everything we do. The argument, "we mirror MLB", is false. Bart determined this formula, and many people think it is wrong. It is arbitrary. We were not consulted, as paying customers, as to what this formula should be.
I'm not satisfied with, "tough, that's what we decided and that's it."
June 14, 2010 at 07:20PM View BBCode
(applauds Bart for developing a seriously flawed formula. bravo.)here's the other problem, happy. the BBWA do not have, or use, a formula. I at least understand what Mylanta does, even if I think it's stupid.
My opinion of the MVP awards is different than bart's. bart sees a RF bias, I do not. He is making a subjective conclusion, not an objective one. The fact of the matter is, LFers win it just as often as RFers. That is a fact. So bart is making an objective mistake, as well.
And hammy, I have proposed formulas before, and offered them here. the only person here who has not, is you.
We are not emulating MLB when it comes to the awards. We are emulating the BBWA (and misinterpreting their results). They are not MLB employees. They were given this vote way back when because they were the only media there was. The AP gives awards, TSN gives awards. Why not incorporate their voting prefs along with the BBWA?
All stars... we don't let fans vote. Why don't the owners vote as a proxy for the fans? The fact of the matter is, we do not emulate MLB in everything we do. The argument, "we mirror MLB", is false. Bart determined this formula, and many people think it is wrong. It is arbitrary. We were not consulted, as paying customers, as to what this formula should be.
I'm not satisfied with, "tough, that's what we decided and that's it."
dirtdevil
*larger sigh*
whcih i recognize, and appreciate. i (we) are trying to do the same.
i agree that there are times when writers vote to give the award to guys i don't agree with. i do not agree that we should try and make our award results come out differently because of this.
look, the idea behind the formula is not to determine what any one person thinks is the best player in SD in any given league/season. the idea is to predict the winner of the mlb mvp. in order to do tis, a RF bonus has been added for all the reasons you have articulated as existing in mlb. tyson has chosen to use this predictor as the tool by which to determine the winner of the SD mvp. this is a completely seperate issue than whether or not the RF bonus makes sense as it pertains to the mlb predictor.
this is, i think your best argument. (not the part about adding a mentoring bonus, the rest) i don't feel, myself, that it is strong enough to trump my own desire (and obviously tyson's, which is the important one) to use something that mirrors mlb outcomes.
i actually find that the pendulum has swung too far the other way for some fans and statheads. just because the triple crown stats were given perhaps too much emphasis (i say perhaps because for most of that time there were no other options) that doesn't mean that they are of no value at all now. there is more to a player than ops, for instance, just as there is more to a player than rbi's. ops is a more valuable stat, but it is not the only valuable one.
this is the best alternate solution i have seen to date. i prefer the exsting formula myself, because i prefer to emulate mlb, not try and 'improve' on it.
we've been over this to death in other threads. i (we) do not agree with you on that issue.
June 14, 2010 at 07:28PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
*sigh*
*larger sigh*
I will begin by stating, emphatically, that I am trying to be constructive here, and that I will try NOT to write a book about this.
whcih i recognize, and appreciate. i (we) are trying to do the same.
1) My premise is that the voting record by the BBWA in awards is not stellar. I ask why do we mirror them? The response is always "just because we want to emulate MLB." I think that is the wrong way to go. To emulate MLB in the way the game is played is grand. To emulate the writers, who have been wrong so many times, is not grand.
i agree that there are times when writers vote to give the award to guys i don't agree with. i do not agree that we should try and make our award results come out differently because of this.
2) The RF bias (which I don't agree exists, even in MLB) is because great players have played on great teams and they played RF. The voting I have seen DOES NOT SHOW that RFers have any significant edge because they played RF. I agree that RFers are generally better fielders than LFers... IN MLB. That is not true in the sim, however. At least not in any meaningful way. Certainly, comparing two guys like Luzinski and Dawson, having similar hitting seasons, as a voter I would look at defensive stats to separate the two. One guy could handle CF if need be, the other should be a DH. But that's not a RF bias, that's a decision based on looking at their defensive prowess. Give a RFer an edge over a LFer only if he has a defensive edge, not just because of position. Until RFers in the sim can have 15-20 assists, and LFers 3-4, no such advantage exists. I don't think we should attribute things in MLB to sim players if those things do not exist in the sim.
look, the idea behind the formula is not to determine what any one person thinks is the best player in SD in any given league/season. the idea is to predict the winner of the mlb mvp. in order to do tis, a RF bonus has been added for all the reasons you have articulated as existing in mlb. tyson has chosen to use this predictor as the tool by which to determine the winner of the SD mvp. this is a completely seperate issue than whether or not the RF bonus makes sense as it pertains to the mlb predictor.
3) Baseball is not a holy sacrament, and to cling tightly to all that is MLB is superstition. We are not MLB. Our game IS different. Contrary to what some have said here, we DO know what the writers were thinking, because they've said so. They write books and articles, and they appear on talk shows stating why they gave this guy a vote over another. Never, ever, have I heard a guy say that he voted for a player because he played RF. If they don't state a bias, why do we attribute one? I see them saying things like leadership and clutch and baserunning, etc that gave one player the edge. We don't have that in the sim, bits of code do not have personalities. We do have mentoring grades, which are supposed to reflect a positive effect on the team, which it does when developing young players. Why not use that instead of a bogus RF bonus? Give the player the exact # grade of his mentor score. If a player is an A+ mentor, give him 100 points. If he's a B-, he gets 60 (or whatever his # is).
this is, i think your best argument. (not the part about adding a mentoring bonus, the rest) i don't feel, myself, that it is strong enough to trump my own desire (and obviously tyson's, which is the important one) to use something that mirrors mlb outcomes.
4) Until the late '70's, most awards were based on triple crown stats, and wins for SPs. While some writers still refuse to fully understand baseball stats and what they mean, that is changing. I believe we should join the information age and adjust our formulas to what we know now, and away from what the dunderheads of the BBWA think. Using the votes of the writers from the 30's, etc, as a blueprint makes no sense.
i actually find that the pendulum has swung too far the other way for some fans and statheads. just because the triple crown stats were given perhaps too much emphasis (i say perhaps because for most of that time there were no other options) that doesn't mean that they are of no value at all now. there is more to a player than ops, for instance, just as there is more to a player than rbi's. ops is a more valuable stat, but it is not the only valuable one.
5) I would propose using a multi-formula: use the BBWA formula as 1/2, and a Win Shares formula as 1/2. Add the two together, and get a consensus pick.
this is the best alternate solution i have seen to date. i prefer the exsting formula myself, because i prefer to emulate mlb, not try and 'improve' on it.
6) The same goes for the FOY. To base it entirely on the Tums award does not identify the best RP. Let's do a BETTER job the Pepto Bismol does in handing out the award. (I know, I know, we want to mirror MLB.)
we've been over this to death in other threads. i (we) do not agree with you on that issue.
happy
June 14, 2010 at 07:33PM View BBCode
Bart, do you have a spreadsheet of the stats and your formula? If you send it to me, id tinker with it when i get free time (hopefully near future), but I wont start from square one.
dirtdevil
there is, you know, no reason to be a d*ck.
which is not really the issue, you know. what you realy disagree with is tyson's decision to use it in SD. which is not the same thing at all.
and why, pray tell, should you be? i don't know any other business that consults with customers about changes as consistently and effectively as does SD. but you weren't consulted about how he game engine runs either, or what the base skills were going to be. there is no reason why you (or me) as a paying customer should be consulted about every business decision that tyson makes. really, we should be grateful that we are consulted to the degree that we are about important changes instead of constantly b*tching about minor nonsense.
that's your perrogative, of course. but there are always going to be discussion of issues that end that way. if you would like to vote with your feet and leave over any one of those issues, that's also your perrogative. this would seem to me to be a pretty dumb issue to do that over, but i can't decide that for you or anyone else.
June 14, 2010 at 07:41PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
(applauds Bart for developing a seriously flawed formula. bravo.)
there is, you know, no reason to be a d*ck.
Bart determined this formula, and many people think it is wrong.
which is not really the issue, you know. what you realy disagree with is tyson's decision to use it in SD. which is not the same thing at all.
It is arbitrary. We were not consulted, as paying customers, as to what this formula should be.
and why, pray tell, should you be? i don't know any other business that consults with customers about changes as consistently and effectively as does SD. but you weren't consulted about how he game engine runs either, or what the base skills were going to be. there is no reason why you (or me) as a paying customer should be consulted about every business decision that tyson makes. really, we should be grateful that we are consulted to the degree that we are about important changes instead of constantly b*tching about minor nonsense.
I'm not satisfied with, "tough, that's what we decided and that's it."
that's your perrogative, of course. but there are always going to be discussion of issues that end that way. if you would like to vote with your feet and leave over any one of those issues, that's also your perrogative. this would seem to me to be a pretty dumb issue to do that over, but i can't decide that for you or anyone else.
Admin
If you don't like the formulas, I'd suggest you support this idea:
http://simdynasty.ideascale.com/a/r/Allow-the-HOF-Coordinator-to-override-Award-Selections/20130-3581
Each league can use whatever formula they want, then have the HOF Coordinator go in and over-ride whatever Abe picks. I'm surprised that idea hasn't been more popular, perhaps it is misunderstood. Maybe I'll ignore the masses and just add this option so we can direct these sort of complaints back inward at the leagues.
Frankly, the amount of effort some people spend in complaining could have produced a new formula by now. I made the mistake in the past with caring about what people thought about these awards, and it just wasted a ton of time as people generally aren't happy with anything we do in this area.
Tyson
June 14, 2010 at 07:43PM View BBCode
Hi All,If you don't like the formulas, I'd suggest you support this idea:
http://simdynasty.ideascale.com/a/r/Allow-the-HOF-Coordinator-to-override-Award-Selections/20130-3581
Each league can use whatever formula they want, then have the HOF Coordinator go in and over-ride whatever Abe picks. I'm surprised that idea hasn't been more popular, perhaps it is misunderstood. Maybe I'll ignore the masses and just add this option so we can direct these sort of complaints back inward at the leagues.
Frankly, the amount of effort some people spend in complaining could have produced a new formula by now. I made the mistake in the past with caring about what people thought about these awards, and it just wasted a ton of time as people generally aren't happy with anything we do in this area.
Tyson
Hamilton2
In your hypothetical 25x Doubles, 4x HR's example earlier: yes. I would approve of a formula like that if it resulted in better correlation to MLB previous MVP winners.
We are building a formula on correlation, not causation. The causation is completely irrelevant.
June 14, 2010 at 07:46PM View BBCode
Happy, I realize that in a perfect statistical vacuum the methodology used in the MVP formula doesn't make sense. It is not the method I would use if I were creating my own game with my own awards. However, the goal with the awards "voting" is the emulate MLB as closely as possible. The best formula is the one that most consistently generates the same MVP as MLB. Period. It is a results-based model, not an input-variable model. The importance of a factor is entirely dependent upon its ability to take a wide cross-section of data and generate a specified result.In your hypothetical 25x Doubles, 4x HR's example earlier: yes. I would approve of a formula like that if it resulted in better correlation to MLB previous MVP winners.
We are building a formula on correlation, not causation. The causation is completely irrelevant.
tm4559
at various other times, it has been something else, like vague conceptions of utility or value or some other fragment of something that caught his fancy. just ignore it, he will move on to something else.
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by tm4559]
June 14, 2010 at 07:53PM View BBCode
this week its causation and correlation and data mining as the buzzwords (he is really kind of thinking of data massaging, or data manipulation, which, truly, is the absolute norm in model building. if you can't massage your data to get the result your grant givet is looking for, you need to find another line of work, really.)at various other times, it has been something else, like vague conceptions of utility or value or some other fragment of something that caught his fancy. just ignore it, he will move on to something else.
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by tm4559]
shep1582
I agree with all your counterpoints, except one:
"look, the idea behind the formula is not to determine what any one person thinks is the best player in SD in any given league/season. the idea is to predict the winner of the mlb mvp. in order to do tis, a RF bonus has been added for all the reasons you have articulated as existing in mlb. tyson has chosen to use this predictor as the tool by which to determine the winner of the SD mvp. this is a completely seperate issue than whether or not the RF bonus makes sense as it pertains to the mlb predictor."
I absolutely disagree that there is any RF bias. It does not exist. Show me the data that proves it exists, and I will change my mind.
Give me one, just one, quote from a BBWA that states that he voted for a player BECAUSE HE PLAYED RF. I'll open myself up for later ridicule and say flatly that no quote exists. He might say Clemente was a good RFer and Allen was, well, not a very good LFer or 1B man. But he's describing the quality of the guy's defense, not the position he plays.
Show me proof, and I, for one, will stfu.
And let's say that MLB RFers are, every one of them, better fielders than LFers, all of them, too. And let's say RF is harder to play and requires more skill than LF. What is the empirical data we would use to say that? Is it range factor? Assists?
Let's do a hypothetical:
The avg RF has a 2,08, the avg LF has one of 1.95. RF makes 12 assists per season, LF makes 3. That's 349 plus plays for RF, 319 for LF every 162 games. That's 30 extra outs, every thing else being equal. What is that worth? Is that worth more, or less, than the bonus we give RFers?
June 14, 2010 at 07:56PM View BBCode
thanks deke.I agree with all your counterpoints, except one:
"look, the idea behind the formula is not to determine what any one person thinks is the best player in SD in any given league/season. the idea is to predict the winner of the mlb mvp. in order to do tis, a RF bonus has been added for all the reasons you have articulated as existing in mlb. tyson has chosen to use this predictor as the tool by which to determine the winner of the SD mvp. this is a completely seperate issue than whether or not the RF bonus makes sense as it pertains to the mlb predictor."
I absolutely disagree that there is any RF bias. It does not exist. Show me the data that proves it exists, and I will change my mind.
Give me one, just one, quote from a BBWA that states that he voted for a player BECAUSE HE PLAYED RF. I'll open myself up for later ridicule and say flatly that no quote exists. He might say Clemente was a good RFer and Allen was, well, not a very good LFer or 1B man. But he's describing the quality of the guy's defense, not the position he plays.
Show me proof, and I, for one, will stfu.
And let's say that MLB RFers are, every one of them, better fielders than LFers, all of them, too. And let's say RF is harder to play and requires more skill than LF. What is the empirical data we would use to say that? Is it range factor? Assists?
Let's do a hypothetical:
The avg RF has a 2,08, the avg LF has one of 1.95. RF makes 12 assists per season, LF makes 3. That's 349 plus plays for RF, 319 for LF every 162 games. That's 30 extra outs, every thing else being equal. What is that worth? Is that worth more, or less, than the bonus we give RFers?
happy
Ok hammy, here is the thing, when you reverse engineer a formula to get results, and when the sample size is incredible small and you are trying to predict something that was actually done subjectively, you must at times realize that certain parts of your formula (the ones that dont make sense) are not actually predictive
If the formula had 25x doubles, and we KNOW (do we not know this?) that the BWAA would NOT put more emphasis on doubles than home runs, then we KNOW that our predictor is not correct.
We must understand that this predictor is trying to determine what makes the BWAA tick. This requires subective AND objective analysis. When we know that home runs are more valuable than doubles to the BWAA, we also know that ANY formula that has more emphasis on doubles is WRONG. And the reason WHY its wrong is because our objective is to try to predict future MVP candidates, and if we have a formula that for the most part reaches the same conclusion, but reaches it in a completely different way, then this formula is a piece of crap.
SO, when evaluating this formula, you are to try to maximize your closeness to the results WITHOUT going outside of certain constraints that you have subjectively set because of your knowledge of the general baseball knowledge (such as making sure home runs are valued more than doubles, or centerfield is valued more than right field).
I am not saying that *I* think that CF is more valuable than RF. I am saying that I think *The BWAA* thinks that CF is more valuable than RF, and I think most everyone will agree with this. If we agree that the BWAA believes CF is more valuable than RF, then for this particular issue, the formula is JUST PLAIN WRONG. And if you cant understand that, then what I am saying is not as obvious as Tim is saying, because what I am saying here is a matter of fact.
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
June 14, 2010 at 07:58PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
In your hypothetical 25x Doubles, 4x HR's example earlier: yes. I would approve of a formula like that if it resulted in better correlation to MLB previous MVP winners.
We are building a formula on correlation, not causation. The causation is completely irrelevant.
Ok hammy, here is the thing, when you reverse engineer a formula to get results, and when the sample size is incredible small and you are trying to predict something that was actually done subjectively, you must at times realize that certain parts of your formula (the ones that dont make sense) are not actually predictive
If the formula had 25x doubles, and we KNOW (do we not know this?) that the BWAA would NOT put more emphasis on doubles than home runs, then we KNOW that our predictor is not correct.
We must understand that this predictor is trying to determine what makes the BWAA tick. This requires subective AND objective analysis. When we know that home runs are more valuable than doubles to the BWAA, we also know that ANY formula that has more emphasis on doubles is WRONG. And the reason WHY its wrong is because our objective is to try to predict future MVP candidates, and if we have a formula that for the most part reaches the same conclusion, but reaches it in a completely different way, then this formula is a piece of crap.
SO, when evaluating this formula, you are to try to maximize your closeness to the results WITHOUT going outside of certain constraints that you have subjectively set because of your knowledge of the general baseball knowledge (such as making sure home runs are valued more than doubles, or centerfield is valued more than right field).
I am not saying that *I* think that CF is more valuable than RF. I am saying that I think *The BWAA* thinks that CF is more valuable than RF, and I think most everyone will agree with this. If we agree that the BWAA believes CF is more valuable than RF, then for this particular issue, the formula is JUST PLAIN WRONG. And if you cant understand that, then what I am saying is not as obvious as Tim is saying, because what I am saying here is a matter of fact.
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
happy
((In fact, I dont expect it to be fixed, I just expect the smart thinking people of simdynasty to understand that it is an error, because I dont care about the formula, It just bugs me that people have such silly thoughts.))
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
June 14, 2010 at 08:05PM View BBCode
(See the thing is that there are a million errors on the formula. A million non obvious errors that I couldnt possibly expect bart to know of, like... I dont know, doubles are closer to 2.2 than 2 or some such thing. And with the culmination of all these errors, he found that adding another error, valuaing RF over CF, allows for the errors to weirdly cancel out for the particular results he has at this moment. However, resolving the RF bonus issue will actually cause better future prediction even though it doesnt cause better past prediction. And maybe if we went thru and worked out some other kinks, it would end up being an even better predictor than before. But I dont expect this, I just expect the ONE AND ONLY obvious error to be fixed.)((In fact, I dont expect it to be fixed, I just expect the smart thinking people of simdynasty to understand that it is an error, because I dont care about the formula, It just bugs me that people have such silly thoughts.))
[Edited on 6-14-2010 by happy]
dirtdevil
and what we're saying, (which you're ignoring because you're having more fun telling us all you're right, over and over and over) is that we don't care. the formula as is predicts the mlb results better than any other formula anyone else has presented. that is all we care about at this point in time. if you want to get your stats prof to put in the effort to make a more perfect model that better predicts the voting results then we will all, including bart, be more than happy to use it. until you or shep, or anyone else takes the time to do that however, you're just pushing around hot air. which is more his thing than yours so you're probably best to just leave him to it.
June 14, 2010 at 08:05PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
I am not saying that *I* think that CF is more valuable than RF. I am saying that I think *The BWAA* thinks that CF is more valuable than RF, and I think most everyone will agree with this. If we agree that the BWAA believes CF is more valuable than RF, then for this particular issue, the formula is JUST PLAIN WRONG. And if you cant understand that, then what I am saying is not as obvious as Tim is saying, because what I am saying here is a matter of fact.
and what we're saying, (which you're ignoring because you're having more fun telling us all you're right, over and over and over) is that we don't care. the formula as is predicts the mlb results better than any other formula anyone else has presented. that is all we care about at this point in time. if you want to get your stats prof to put in the effort to make a more perfect model that better predicts the voting results then we will all, including bart, be more than happy to use it. until you or shep, or anyone else takes the time to do that however, you're just pushing around hot air. which is more his thing than yours so you're probably best to just leave him to it.
tm4559
Why don't you guys stop complaining about the stupid, dopey ABE awards"? Because it is stupid and dopey. The complaining part. The part where we defend the determination of the award, such as it is? Also stupid and dopey. Nothing good can come from a process that starts out stupid and dopey. Only stupid and dopey can follow.
June 14, 2010 at 08:05PM View BBCode
i think you missed the point of what i said. what i really meant to say was:Why don't you guys stop complaining about the stupid, dopey ABE awards"? Because it is stupid and dopey. The complaining part. The part where we defend the determination of the award, such as it is? Also stupid and dopey. Nothing good can come from a process that starts out stupid and dopey. Only stupid and dopey can follow.
happy
I made one suggestion. That one suggestion would cause the model to predict awards better. My basis is not the statistics, it is common sense. (remember, predict is the future, not the past)
June 14, 2010 at 08:08PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by happy
I am not saying that *I* think that CF is more valuable than RF. I am saying that I think *The BWAA* thinks that CF is more valuable than RF, and I think most everyone will agree with this. If we agree that the BWAA believes CF is more valuable than RF, then for this particular issue, the formula is JUST PLAIN WRONG. And if you cant understand that, then what I am saying is not as obvious as Tim is saying, because what I am saying here is a matter of fact.
and what we're saying, (which you're ignoring because you're having more fun telling us all you're right, over and over and over) is that we don't care. the formula as is predicts the mlb results better than any other formula anyone else has presented. that is all we care about at this point in time. if you want to get your stats prof to put in the effort to make a more perfect model that better predicts the voting results then we will all, including bart, be more than happy to use it. until you or shep, or anyone else takes the time to do that however, you're just pushing around hot air. which is more his thing than yours so you're probably best to just leave him to it.
I made one suggestion. That one suggestion would cause the model to predict awards better. My basis is not the statistics, it is common sense. (remember, predict is the future, not the past)
shep1582
"that's your perrogative, of course. but there are always going to be discussion of issues that end that way. if you would like to vote with your feet and leave over any one of those issues, that's also your perrogative. this would seem to me to be a pretty dumb issue to do that over, but i can't decide that for you or anyone else."
who said I was leaving over this, or even thinking about it? I'm just debating it, that's all. That's not b1tching, either. I'm merely arguing my POV.
tyson - there's nothing personal here, just an argument. this is "suggest enhancements", and i feel that an enhancement would be to pick the MVP in a way that would be better than the BBWA do.
ditto FOY.
as I've said on numerous occasions, the shep should decide these things.
June 14, 2010 at 08:10PM View BBCode
oh, and this one:"that's your perrogative, of course. but there are always going to be discussion of issues that end that way. if you would like to vote with your feet and leave over any one of those issues, that's also your perrogative. this would seem to me to be a pretty dumb issue to do that over, but i can't decide that for you or anyone else."
who said I was leaving over this, or even thinking about it? I'm just debating it, that's all. That's not b1tching, either. I'm merely arguing my POV.
tyson - there's nothing personal here, just an argument. this is "suggest enhancements", and i feel that an enhancement would be to pick the MVP in a way that would be better than the BBWA do.
ditto FOY.
as I've said on numerous occasions, the shep should decide these things.
happy
(You dont have to be here if you dont want to tim, its ok, we dont need adult supervision)
June 14, 2010 at 08:12PM View BBCode
Tim does the thing where he puts himself into conversations and is like "Guys, I dont care, so stop talking about it."(You dont have to be here if you dont want to tim, its ok, we dont need adult supervision)
dirtdevil
i understand what you're saying, but the evidence is right there, should you wish to see it. if someone says that one of the reasons that he voted for clemente and not allen or for dawson and not luznski was that he was a better defender, is that not a de facto RF bias?
(let me say that i tend to agree that voters don't say things like 'i voted for him because he played RF. but they do vote for the superior defenders who tend to play RF more often than LF. most important to me though, is that that the formula works better with the RF bonus in it, as counterintuitive as that bonus may seem.)
June 14, 2010 at 08:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
Give me one, just one, quote from a BBWA that states that he voted for a player BECAUSE HE PLAYED RF. I'll open myself up for later ridicule and say flatly that no quote exists. He might say Clemente was a good RFer and Allen was, well, not a very good LFer or 1B man. But he's describing the quality of the guy's defense, not the position he plays.
i understand what you're saying, but the evidence is right there, should you wish to see it. if someone says that one of the reasons that he voted for clemente and not allen or for dawson and not luznski was that he was a better defender, is that not a de facto RF bias?
(let me say that i tend to agree that voters don't say things like 'i voted for him because he played RF. but they do vote for the superior defenders who tend to play RF more often than LF. most important to me though, is that that the formula works better with the RF bonus in it, as counterintuitive as that bonus may seem.)
dirtdevil
prove it.
show me improved results and i'll be happy to use your formula. otherwise, not.
June 14, 2010 at 08:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
I made one suggestion. That one suggestion would cause the model to predict awards better.
prove it.
My basis is not the statistics, it is common sense.
show me improved results and i'll be happy to use your formula. otherwise, not.
shep1582
according to this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
pitchers 23
C 19
1B 32
2B 15
3B 13
SS 15
LF 24
CF 17 (or 18 if you count Wildfire Schulte, who is listed as OF)
RF 22
Left fielders have won more MVP awards than right fielders.
[Edited on 6/14/2010 by shep1582]
June 14, 2010 at 08:39PM View BBCode
not sure why deke wants to attack me personally, admin. but I hope he resists the urge to do it again.according to this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
pitchers 23
C 19
1B 32
2B 15
3B 13
SS 15
LF 24
CF 17 (or 18 if you count Wildfire Schulte, who is listed as OF)
RF 22
Left fielders have won more MVP awards than right fielders.
[Edited on 6/14/2010 by shep1582]
happy
The postulate: the BWAA puts more value on playing CF than RF
The conclusion: if you make a formula to predict how the BWAA WILL vote in the MVP, you should put more value on CF than RF.
2) "my basis is common sense" "where are the statistics"
Statistics is not the only way to come to a conclusion.
June 14, 2010 at 08:40PM View BBCode
1) Proof:The postulate: the BWAA puts more value on playing CF than RF
The conclusion: if you make a formula to predict how the BWAA WILL vote in the MVP, you should put more value on CF than RF.
2) "my basis is common sense" "where are the statistics"
Statistics is not the only way to come to a conclusion.
dirtdevil
your sense of humour and complete lack of irony is alwaqys entertaining.
that's nice, but not the point bart makes at all. his point (as i understand it) is that RFers with inferior totals won awards that the stats suggest should have gone to players atother postions. which is not the same as this (quite correct) information you have provided.
June 14, 2010 at 08:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by shep1582
not sure why deke wants to attack me personally, admin. but I hope he resists the urge to do it again.
your sense of humour and complete lack of irony is alwaqys entertaining.
according to this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/mvp_cya.shtml
pitchers 23
C 19
1B 32
2B 15
3B 13
SS 15
LF 24
CF 17 (or 18 if you count Wildfire Schulte, who is listed as OF)
RF 22
Left fielders have won more MVP awards than right fielders.
that's nice, but not the point bart makes at all. his point (as i understand it) is that RFers with inferior totals won awards that the stats suggest should have gone to players atother postions. which is not the same as this (quite correct) information you have provided.