 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » Vote on RF bonus for MVP
| Poll: Vote on RF bonus for MVP | |
|---|---|
| Yes, RF's are inherently superior beings, perhaps demi-gods. Hitters will actually hit away from them in fear! | 7 |
| No, RF's are actually just human beings and equal to lowly LF's & 1B. | 16 |
WillyD
I just want to get an idea of the numbers in terms of what SimD owners think.
Vote on RF bonus for MVP
December 03, 2010 at 03:41AM View BBCode
OK let's have a vote. Does the 140 point RF bonus for the MVP award in SimD make sense?I just want to get an idea of the numbers in terms of what SimD owners think.
dirtdevil
failing that, you could at least design a legitimate question instead of one so clearly designed to have only one possible answer. say something like:
"do you feel the the demonstrated success of the mvp formula in predicting the outcome of mlb mvp voting outweighs the inherent lack of logic in the positional bonuses?"
December 03, 2010 at 03:50AM View BBCode
how about instead you actually take the time to suggest an alternative formula instead of spending your time constantly bashing the current one.failing that, you could at least design a legitimate question instead of one so clearly designed to have only one possible answer. say something like:
"do you feel the the demonstrated success of the mvp formula in predicting the outcome of mlb mvp voting outweighs the inherent lack of logic in the positional bonuses?"
WillyD
Again dirt, the alternate formula is simple. Remove the RF bonus. Is that so hard for you to figure out? How many times does it need to be said? I think you are secretly jealous of bart's formula. You really really want someone else to create a new one. Maybe you are secretly on my side and are trying to inspire me or one of the other hundreds of who agree with me to create a better formula and then discredit Bart.
December 03, 2010 at 04:04AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
how about instead you actually take the time to suggest an alternative formula instead of spending your time constantly bashing the current one.
failing that, you could at least design a legitimate question instead of one so clearly designed to have only one possible answer. say something like:
"do you feel the the demonstrated success of the mvp formula in predicting the outcome of mlb mvp voting outweighs the inherent lack of logic in the positional bonuses?"
Again dirt, the alternate formula is simple. Remove the RF bonus. Is that so hard for you to figure out? How many times does it need to be said? I think you are secretly jealous of bart's formula. You really really want someone else to create a new one. Maybe you are secretly on my side and are trying to inspire me or one of the other hundreds of who agree with me to create a better formula and then discredit Bart.
Admin
If you like that idea, I suggest you throw your weight behind this idea. If you get enough people to support that idea, I'll work on it:
http://simdynasty.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Allow-the-HOF-Coordinator-to-override-Award-Selections/20130-3581
Tyson
December 03, 2010 at 04:16AM View BBCode
Hi Willy,If you like that idea, I suggest you throw your weight behind this idea. If you get enough people to support that idea, I'll work on it:
http://simdynasty.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Allow-the-HOF-Coordinator-to-override-Award-Selections/20130-3581
Tyson
dirtdevil
the. formula. doesn't. work. without. the. RF. bonus.
(until someone creates a new formula, that's really all there is to it. because as illogical as it may sound, simply removing the RF bonus from this one will cause it to become less effective. period. full stop.)
December 03, 2010 at 02:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Again dirt, the alternate formula is simple. Remove the RF bonus. Is that so hard for you to figure out? How many times does it need to be said? I think you are secretly jealous of bart's formula. You really really want someone else to create a new one. Maybe you are secretly on my side and are trying to inspire me or one of the other hundreds of who agree with me to create a better formula and then discredit Bart.
the. formula. doesn't. work. without. the. RF. bonus.
(until someone creates a new formula, that's really all there is to it. because as illogical as it may sound, simply removing the RF bonus from this one will cause it to become less effective. period. full stop.)
dirtdevil
December 03, 2010 at 02:21PM View BBCode
(also willliam, if you could show me where you feel i insulted you in the other thread, i'd be interested. because as far as i can see, i didn't.)
barterer2002
My contention is that you're looking at the wrong thing. You have consistently contended that LF and RF are equal positions which seems wrong to me. Players like Barry Bonds or Lou Brock couldn't play RF because they couldn't throw for crap. Anyone can play LF however, its where you hide the horrible defensive player in MLB.
The issue then in SD is that these two positions are treated the same defensively. It seems more logical to me to say that we need to make defense more relevant, to make it more likely for out of position players to err, to make throws from the OF relevant etc.
December 03, 2010 at 03:07PM View BBCode
WillyMy contention is that you're looking at the wrong thing. You have consistently contended that LF and RF are equal positions which seems wrong to me. Players like Barry Bonds or Lou Brock couldn't play RF because they couldn't throw for crap. Anyone can play LF however, its where you hide the horrible defensive player in MLB.
The issue then in SD is that these two positions are treated the same defensively. It seems more logical to me to say that we need to make defense more relevant, to make it more likely for out of position players to err, to make throws from the OF relevant etc.
WillyD
I agree about fixing the defense in SimD. I have mentioned it before.
I still contend your wrong about RF. Having an arm doesn't make you a great fielder or player. Speed and glove are more important than thrwoing arm. Arm is a tie-breaker.
December 03, 2010 at 06:15PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Willy
My contention is that you're looking at the wrong thing. You have consistently contended that LF and RF are equal positions which seems wrong to me. Players like Barry Bonds or Lou Brock couldn't play RF because they couldn't throw for crap. Anyone can play LF however, its where you hide the horrible defensive player in MLB.
The issue then in SD is that these two positions are treated the same defensively. It seems more logical to me to say that we need to make defense more relevant, to make it more likely for out of position players to err, to make throws from the OF relevant etc.
I agree about fixing the defense in SimD. I have mentioned it before.
I still contend your wrong about RF. Having an arm doesn't make you a great fielder or player. Speed and glove are more important than thrwoing arm. Arm is a tie-breaker.
paulcaraccio
I think the poll is a good idea, but agree that the wording is severely unfair.
Dirt, I have to agree with Willy that your attitude during this discussion has been insulting. You keep saying the same thing even though multiple people disagree with that statement. You could have said it just once, or not at all - everyone already knows. We're trying to enhance the game, not hear what the current status of it is, over and over.
Tyson, suggesting that we throw our weight of 1 ideascale vote behind an idea that is currently at -13 doesn't seem like an ideal solution for us. Taking the case to the public seems like our only hope, and I hope the censorship of this discussion does not continue, but if it comes down to that or kicking me off the site, then censor us.
December 03, 2010 at 07:11PM View BBCode
I'm glad this got started again, since the last discussion was censored.I think the poll is a good idea, but agree that the wording is severely unfair.
Dirt, I have to agree with Willy that your attitude during this discussion has been insulting. You keep saying the same thing even though multiple people disagree with that statement. You could have said it just once, or not at all - everyone already knows. We're trying to enhance the game, not hear what the current status of it is, over and over.
Tyson, suggesting that we throw our weight of 1 ideascale vote behind an idea that is currently at -13 doesn't seem like an ideal solution for us. Taking the case to the public seems like our only hope, and I hope the censorship of this discussion does not continue, but if it comes down to that or kicking me off the site, then censor us.
Hamilton2
Tyson has stated numerous times and in dozens of different threads that if anyone can come up with a formula that better predicts past MVP winners based on available statistics that he will change the MVP formula. Period.
There is no discussion to be had.
Either create a new formula that meets the criteria or shut the hell up.
December 03, 2010 at 07:23PM View BBCode
Paul, you aren't "trying to enhance the game." You have done absolutely nothing to provide statistical evidence or analysis to your position. All you do is whine about the fact that a RF bonus to the existing formula does a better job at predicting MVP winners than any formula yet known that does not contain such a bonus.Tyson has stated numerous times and in dozens of different threads that if anyone can come up with a formula that better predicts past MVP winners based on available statistics that he will change the MVP formula. Period.
There is no discussion to be had.
Either create a new formula that meets the criteria or shut the hell up.
Admin
I won't take an inferior formula and apply it to all leagues. But if a superior formula was presented, I would do this. If some leagues wish to use an inferior formula, I am fine with that as well.
Tyson
December 03, 2010 at 07:24PM View BBCode
If enough people agree with you, you should be able to get it to 0 and then I'll work on it. I may work on it anyhow.I won't take an inferior formula and apply it to all leagues. But if a superior formula was presented, I would do this. If some leagues wish to use an inferior formula, I am fine with that as well.
Tyson
paulcaraccio
December 03, 2010 at 08:07PM View BBCode
Would it be possible for individual leagues to use a modified version of the formula that simply eliminates the RF bonus? If so, I will post that on ideascale.
paulcaraccio
[Edited on 12-3-2010 by paulcaraccio]
December 03, 2010 at 08:11PM View BBCode
Also, would Dynasty Leagues be allowed to make this change, if all owners agree to it? Or would it only be allowed for the other leagues?[Edited on 12-3-2010 by paulcaraccio]
Admin
The mechanism for leagues to use their own formula would be the HOF Coordinator over-ride idea.
Tyson
December 03, 2010 at 08:13PM View BBCode
Only for other leagues.The mechanism for leagues to use their own formula would be the HOF Coordinator over-ride idea.
Tyson
Hamilton2
December 03, 2010 at 08:22PM View BBCode
Oh, for the record, I voted in favor of the HOF coordinator override thing ages ago. I'm just tired of hearing complaints from people who won't take action to change things.
dirtdevil
i'm sorry you feel that way. some specific examples of where i've been insulting might be helpful fro me to understand where i have given offence. i have gone back and re-read the thread and i just don't see anything there that's insulting. frustrated, certainly, but i honestly don't see where i've insulted anyone.
however, i'm not sure what it is you'd like me to say. tyson has stated his goals for the mvp formula quite clearly. if your goals for the award don't match, i don't know what to tell you other than that's what the goals are, and we have to work within those parameters.
i agree (and have on several occasions) that the RF bonus seems illogical and silly. if i were to design one myself, i likely wouldn't have included it. but bart didn't have one in his original formula either and it didn't work. the indisputable fact is that the formula doesn't work as well without the bonus included. simply removing that aspect of the formula doesn't help, because all it does is produce an inferior formula, which is a non-starter. so if someone wants to do away with the RF bonus, they're going to have to come up with an alternative that performs better in predicting the mlb voting outcomes. since you and other don't seem willing to do that, i'm not sure what it is that you'd like the rest of us to do.
i'm sorry if you feel that my comments are unhelpfully repetitive. but from my perspective, you guys have stubbornly refused to hear anything anyone else has been saying. you seem to either want tyson to change the goal of the award, which isn't going to happen, or to have someone else change the formula to your liking witout having to do the work yourselves.
your way out is perfectly simple- design a new formula you like better than has performs better than the current one. we've all said on multiple occasions that we'd be more than happy to use a superior formula, however it's arrived at. but that seems to be the only thing you aren't willing to do. frankly i find your position on this incredibly frustrating for that reason. if that has caused my comments to be rougher than i think they are, then i'm sorry for that, but i don't think i'm alone in my frustration.
i don't wish to be insulting, but have you stopped to consider that the fact that enhancement is at -13 is potentially indicative that your position isn't as wideheld as you think? again, i don't wish to insult you, but ideascale is already a public forum. if the idea isn't gaining any traction there, what makes you think the outcome will be any different here? again, i'm asking a legitimate question there, not trying to insult anyone. if the idea is already being poorly received in one public forum, what outside factor will change to make it have a positive reception in a different one?
it sees to me that you guys have been presented with multiple ways to achieve your desire, but you aren't interested in either of them. so how are the rest of us supposed to respond to that apparent attitude without upsetting you? you don't like the goal of the formula. you don't like the formula because of the position bonus. you don't care that the bonus makes the formula more accurate. you aren't willing to work at either creating a new one or modifying the old into something you do like that performs better. you aren't willing to try to gain support for the ideascale suggestion that would allow your leagues to override the formula winner. frankly, you aren't leaving us with much to work with.
December 03, 2010 at 08:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by paulcaraccio
Dirt, I have to agree with Willy that your attitude during this discussion has been insulting. You keep saying the same thing even though multiple people disagree with that statement. You could have said it just once, or not at all - everyone already knows. We're trying to enhance the game, not hear what the current status of it is, over and over.
i'm sorry you feel that way. some specific examples of where i've been insulting might be helpful fro me to understand where i have given offence. i have gone back and re-read the thread and i just don't see anything there that's insulting. frustrated, certainly, but i honestly don't see where i've insulted anyone.
however, i'm not sure what it is you'd like me to say. tyson has stated his goals for the mvp formula quite clearly. if your goals for the award don't match, i don't know what to tell you other than that's what the goals are, and we have to work within those parameters.
i agree (and have on several occasions) that the RF bonus seems illogical and silly. if i were to design one myself, i likely wouldn't have included it. but bart didn't have one in his original formula either and it didn't work. the indisputable fact is that the formula doesn't work as well without the bonus included. simply removing that aspect of the formula doesn't help, because all it does is produce an inferior formula, which is a non-starter. so if someone wants to do away with the RF bonus, they're going to have to come up with an alternative that performs better in predicting the mlb voting outcomes. since you and other don't seem willing to do that, i'm not sure what it is that you'd like the rest of us to do.
i'm sorry if you feel that my comments are unhelpfully repetitive. but from my perspective, you guys have stubbornly refused to hear anything anyone else has been saying. you seem to either want tyson to change the goal of the award, which isn't going to happen, or to have someone else change the formula to your liking witout having to do the work yourselves.
your way out is perfectly simple- design a new formula you like better than has performs better than the current one. we've all said on multiple occasions that we'd be more than happy to use a superior formula, however it's arrived at. but that seems to be the only thing you aren't willing to do. frankly i find your position on this incredibly frustrating for that reason. if that has caused my comments to be rougher than i think they are, then i'm sorry for that, but i don't think i'm alone in my frustration.
Tyson, suggesting that we throw our weight of 1 ideascale vote behind an idea that is currently at -13 doesn't seem like an ideal solution for us. Taking the case to the public seems like our only hope, and I hope the censorship of this discussion does not continue, but if it comes down to that or kicking me off the site, then censor us.
i don't wish to be insulting, but have you stopped to consider that the fact that enhancement is at -13 is potentially indicative that your position isn't as wideheld as you think? again, i don't wish to insult you, but ideascale is already a public forum. if the idea isn't gaining any traction there, what makes you think the outcome will be any different here? again, i'm asking a legitimate question there, not trying to insult anyone. if the idea is already being poorly received in one public forum, what outside factor will change to make it have a positive reception in a different one?
it sees to me that you guys have been presented with multiple ways to achieve your desire, but you aren't interested in either of them. so how are the rest of us supposed to respond to that apparent attitude without upsetting you? you don't like the goal of the formula. you don't like the formula because of the position bonus. you don't care that the bonus makes the formula more accurate. you aren't willing to work at either creating a new one or modifying the old into something you do like that performs better. you aren't willing to try to gain support for the ideascale suggestion that would allow your leagues to override the formula winner. frankly, you aren't leaving us with much to work with.
dirtdevil
you don't need to, really. just vote (and have anyone you know who shares your view vote) for the override idea.
December 03, 2010 at 08:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by paulcaraccio
Would it be possible for individual leagues to use a modified version of the formula that simply eliminates the RF bonus? If so, I will post that on ideascale.
you don't need to, really. just vote (and have anyone you know who shares your view vote) for the override idea.
paulcaraccio
But then you said that the commissioner override idea is the only option, which is it, are you fine with leagues using different formulas or is that not possible? Just want to clarify because I think I'll post the idea anyway, even though I only play in Dynasty Leagues, just to see how it scores.
December 03, 2010 at 08:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
If some leagues wish to use an inferior formula, I am fine with that as well.
Tyson
But then you said that the commissioner override idea is the only option, which is it, are you fine with leagues using different formulas or is that not possible? Just want to clarify because I think I'll post the idea anyway, even though I only play in Dynasty Leagues, just to see how it scores.
Hamilton2
December 03, 2010 at 08:41PM View BBCode
Paul, the league overrides is the option that would allow for a different formula to be used. Your league would have to agree on the alternative formula internally and apply it manually via the HOF commissioner override. You can use whatever formula you want, but the site-wide, ABE-generated MVP selection will stay with what it is until a new formula with more accurate predictive value is presented.
Admin
Tyson
December 03, 2010 at 09:14PM View BBCode
Yes, this would allow a league to use any cockamamie thing it wanted to, without requiring any programming from us.Tyson
Kingturtle
The SD front page recently touted the accuracy of this formula, saying "The formula has predicted 25 of the last 30 MVPs correctly." This statement, being made before the MVP 2010 winner announcements, must be referring to the MLB results from 1995 to 2009. In that time frame, there have been 30 MVP awards: 7 were first basemen, 6 were right fielders, 4 were shortstops, 4 were third basemen, 4 were left fielders, 2 were catchers, 2 were second basemen, and 1 was a center fielder. That's hardly a landslide for right fielders. While 20% were right fielders, 23.3% were first basemen. Moreover, short stops, third basemen and left fielders fared quite well. Add in the 2010 MVP results, and you get another first baseman and another left fielder, changing the percentages to: 25% first basemen, 18.8% right fielders, and 15.6% left fielders. Right fielders are in no way dominating MLB MVP awards.
There's a lot of talk about offering up a better formula. i think the formula is quite an accomplishment. but i think we can remove the position element of the equation and still have it be a reliable simulation measure. based on the data, i feel confident in predicting that if you remove the position element from the formula, you would still have a high rate of selecting the correct MLB MVP since 1995.
December 03, 2010 at 11:12PM View BBCode
the inclusion of position in calculating MVP on SD is not only unnecessary, it is inaccurate.The SD front page recently touted the accuracy of this formula, saying "The formula has predicted 25 of the last 30 MVPs correctly." This statement, being made before the MVP 2010 winner announcements, must be referring to the MLB results from 1995 to 2009. In that time frame, there have been 30 MVP awards: 7 were first basemen, 6 were right fielders, 4 were shortstops, 4 were third basemen, 4 were left fielders, 2 were catchers, 2 were second basemen, and 1 was a center fielder. That's hardly a landslide for right fielders. While 20% were right fielders, 23.3% were first basemen. Moreover, short stops, third basemen and left fielders fared quite well. Add in the 2010 MVP results, and you get another first baseman and another left fielder, changing the percentages to: 25% first basemen, 18.8% right fielders, and 15.6% left fielders. Right fielders are in no way dominating MLB MVP awards.
There's a lot of talk about offering up a better formula. i think the formula is quite an accomplishment. but i think we can remove the position element of the equation and still have it be a reliable simulation measure. based on the data, i feel confident in predicting that if you remove the position element from the formula, you would still have a high rate of selecting the correct MLB MVP since 1995.
Hamilton2
The position bonuses are not related to the percentage of times the MVP award has been won by the players from various positions. That information is entirely superflous and irrelevant.
The facts:
1. From 1995 to 2010 there have been 32 MVP's.
2. The current simD formula (with positional bonuses) accurately predicts 27 of those 32.
3. If you take the positional bonus out of the formula it then predicts fewer than 27 of 32 MVP's. (In other words, it is less accurate.)
4. Therefore, it doesn't matter how confident you are or how illogical it seems or how well anyone argues against the use of a positional bonus.
Your options:
1. Create a formula that has a higher predictive reliability rating than the current one (better than 27 of the past 32).
2. Vote for the ideascale change to allow HOF commissioners to override the ABE-selected MVP winner.
December 03, 2010 at 11:22PM View BBCode
Turtle, the formula is less accurate without the positional bonus. It is a fact. You can't just say "I believe that it would be more accurate." Because it isn't.The position bonuses are not related to the percentage of times the MVP award has been won by the players from various positions. That information is entirely superflous and irrelevant.
The facts:
1. From 1995 to 2010 there have been 32 MVP's.
2. The current simD formula (with positional bonuses) accurately predicts 27 of those 32.
3. If you take the positional bonus out of the formula it then predicts fewer than 27 of 32 MVP's. (In other words, it is less accurate.)
4. Therefore, it doesn't matter how confident you are or how illogical it seems or how well anyone argues against the use of a positional bonus.
Your options:
1. Create a formula that has a higher predictive reliability rating than the current one (better than 27 of the past 32).
2. Vote for the ideascale change to allow HOF commissioners to override the ABE-selected MVP winner.
Penguin
December 03, 2010 at 11:29PM View BBCode
I'm not taking sides as to whether or not the formula should be changed, I just have a question. Hamilton, you say without the positional bonuses it predicts fewer than 27, do you know the actual number it predicts without the bonuses?
Kingturtle
So the math on this has already been executed? Can you please share the results so I don't have to do all that math myself?
December 03, 2010 at 11:33PM View BBCode
>>>If you take the positional bonus out of the formula it then predicts fewer than 27 of 32 MVP's. (In other words, it is less accurate.)So the math on this has already been executed? Can you please share the results so I don't have to do all that math myself?