Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Bruce, Lee, and the Goose

December 17, 2002 - Joe Dimino (e-mail)

Good stuff Tango, but I agree with Vinay and Colin, that you have to go year by year for the numbers to be meaningful. For example, Goose's starter year is weighed way too much. Not only did he pitch a disproportionate share of his innings that year, but those innings are then being weighed 1.62, when the leverage wasn't nearly that.

I'd say the 1.9 for Sutter is interesting, because that is about what Bill James guessed a typical closer's value was, in his relief study in the NHBA. Maybe we're getting consensus on that at least?

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 2:01 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#1) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  NOTE: scroll down to or do a 'find' on "In-play average, the aftermath, part 1" for the entry Tango referred to, as Tippett continues to post, the relevant entry moves down the list . . .

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 2:49 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#3) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Just did that jto, you must be pyschadelic or something . . .

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 9:57 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#25) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Crack, you couldn't be a bigger moron. Well you could be, but I'd be surprised if it were possible.

Tippett said in the response linked above that he went to baseball stuff page and didn't see anything there and assumed it was a complete list of Voros' work (a reasonable assumption). I think that's a reasonable effort on his part. He also said that as soon as he heard about it, he read it, and he changed his article accordingly.

There's a lot of stuff out there, and Primer was still fairly new when Voros' second article came out, it would have been easy to miss.

Plus the people actually doing research don't necessarily have the time to read everything that comes across the web, they're busy actually researching. I'd venture a guess that Tom spends most his day working on his game, answering email, and I'm sure, watching games. There are only so many hours in a day, and those of us that have full-time jobs don't necessarily have time to read everything written on this site.

He answered every major question that was asked of him based on the article; and he was quite forthcoming and pleasant about it.

You turn around and just snipe away behind the anonymity of the name 'crack' and take potshots, I can't really think of a more annoying style of posting. Morons like you are the reason analysts like Tippett and James can't bother to waste their time reading the good work on sites like this.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 1:17 p.m., August 2, 2003 (#36) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Crack, I agree that he should have read the article, and so does he. That's why he mentioned it in his response. He looked for it and missed it. He made a mistake of not finding something he didn't realize existed, big f-in deal. It's not like the second article made nearly the splash of the first one, it was just a revision to the method, and didn't generate quite the same 'buzz' as the first one.

What I objected to was this, "you would be better served by getting your head and ego out of your ass and paying attention to what is going on."

That tone is totally uncalled for, and is shows you as being a royal a$$hole. It reeks of yahoo message board crap, in an otherwise intelligent discussion, and that's why I figured I'd throw it back at you. The fact that you knew you were acting like an a$$hole and chose to name yourself something that fit with it makes you a coward as well.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 1:29 p.m., August 2, 2003 (#37) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Laurent, I've always sort of liked Rusch too. I was actually pissed last year when someone else outbid me for him in our auction (he went for like $17!). Pitchers are weird though. Maybe he's been pitching hurt or something, they're just hard to project.

One thing that would be interesting to research would be the "DIPS friendliness" of pitchers that struggle for a few years and then 'find it' and go on to have decent careers.

I'd probably still take a flier on Rusch if he ended up with a good team :-)

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 9:09 p.m., August 3, 2003 (#45) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  "Dimino, how come you don't bring down your righteous fury on the guy ripping on Voros as well?"

What comments are you referring to? I don't see any personal attack on Voros before my initial post to Crack? Maybe I'm just missing it, I only skimmed through that point just now, but I don't see anything against Voros personally.

I've always been against unprovoked personal attacks. It's just stupid, and does nothing to advance the discussion. Crack could have made his point without being a prick about it, this isn't Fanhome, that was my point.

It has absolutely nothing to do with being a groupie or anything. It's just common courtesy. I simply don't think it does anything to prove your point by saying things like, 'get your head out of your ass'. It's just stupid immature bullshit, that's all.

I'm done on that angle, don't want to drag this out anymore.

And yes Crack, we can all just get along now. And I didn't allude to anything, I flat out said you were right :-)

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 10:26 a.m., August 4, 2003 (#51) - Joe Dimino
  "I can't resist. Joe writes, "I've always been against unprovoked personal attacks." Then, 2 sentences later, he throws in an unprovoked personal attack against Fanhome. If you say that Fanhome is a site and not a person, I'll say that Fanhome is a group of people, who you have now grouped in with the likes of me. They deserve better. :)"

I love fanhome, all I'm saying is that they have no problems with ripping into people on a personal level over there, that's one part of it that I don't like.

Fanhome is the home of some of the best statistical analysis around. I have absolutely no issues with it, other than what I mentioned. Sorry for any confusion.

Patriot, my post was #25. I only skimmed after that, I was in and out quick Saturday. But, yeah, you are right, there's no need for that either. You agree with him or you don't, you don't need to call him a quick and dirty researcher, because anyone that know Voros knows that's absolutely not the case. When he first presented his findings, he basically took the tone of, 'I wasn't looking for this, it just hit me like a ton of bricks. I did everything I could to disprove it, and I couldn't.'

I guess what I'm saying is, why can't people just make their points without feeling the need to attack people on a personal level?

I guess Crack's post was just the straw that broke my back and I felt the need to say to something. Sorry I've caused this much of a stir, I just don't see the need to get personal about this, it's not necessary to make your point. The only reason I sunk to that level was because Crack had already lowered the bar with his post, so I didn't feel like he was entitled to that courtesy.

Seriously, I'm not an uptight jackass (although I realize that's how it might be perceived off this thread), ask Tango :-) I just get annoyed when people feel the need to personally rip people, it's unecessary, and easy to do when you are hiding behind a keyboard in cyberspace.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 12:09 p.m., August 4, 2003 (#55) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Crack, after the direction this discussion took, I probably should have used a false name :-), sorry for derailing your thread Tango.

Seriously, I apologize if I hit below the belt, for some reason I felt now was the time to take a stand, I probably overreacted somewhat.

For the record, I don't mind false names like TangoTiger, Patriot, Shredder, etc. if that's the name you use all the time; hell I was Scruff in this group for the first year and a half, I only changed because of some confusion with my signature being Joe Dimino when I'd post threads. I don't like it when people use one name for the mean things they don't want to associate themselves with and another when they want to be taken seriously, maybe coward was too strong a word, but I was kind of pissed of the other day, and I do think you should be willing to stand behind whatever you say, or it probably isn't worth saying :-)

And I also think we should remember that 'our darker thoughts/opinions' are sometimes aimed at a an actual person, and not just a name in cyberspace; that was really my entire point, that a person can make a point that's critical of someone/something without hitting below to belt to go for the laugh/dig, etc.

/righteous rant

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 12:14 p.m., September 8, 2003 (#32) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Back to the original post made by Tango to start this off . . .

You said that players are probably being overrated by 2 wins per year, but this wouldn't apply to pitchers would it? I've been calculating pennants added over on the Hall of Merit thread, and I'm going to adjust everyone down by 2 wins per full season. Basically I'll take their WARP1 or WARP3 (adjusted to 162 team games), and subtract PA / (lgPA / 9 * #tm) * 2 from everyone. Does that make sense? And should I do this for pitchers also? I'd think not, since you are saying the error is in their weighing fielding incorrectly.

Thanks for the help!

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 6:23 p.m., October 31, 2003 (#42) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  I agree Tango. Clay says that the 0 FRAR player should be the worst regular in the league and on the verge of a position switch, but presumably, that guy can hit some AND you have a replacement on the bench that is a significantly better fielder.

I agree with everything you've said. Thanks for pointing this out.

Fanhome's Dackle: World Series Odds (September 18, 2003)

Posted 11:35 a.m., September 18, 2003 (#6) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Actual Vegas Odds:

Arizona Diamondbacks 750-1
Atlanta Braves 6-1
Boston Red Sox 6-1
Chicago Cubs 12-1
Chicago White Sox 25-1
Florida Marlins 15-1
Houston Astros 18-1
Kansas City Royals 115-1
Los Angeles Dodgers 50-1
Minnesota Twins 8-1
Montreal Expos 9000-1
New York Yankees 3-1
Oakland Athletics 4-1
Philadelphia Phillies 20-1
San Francisco Giants 4-1
Seattle Mariners 50-1
St Louis Cardinals 250-1

So that would mean, the follownig are "good bets" if we assume Dackle is correct.

Braves at 6:1
Giants at 4:1

That's it. All have worse Vegas Odds (for the bettor) than what Dackle says, Vega$ gets tons of juice on these type of bets.

The worst bet is probably the Twins at 8:1, the Red Sox at 6:1 aren't great either, considering both aren't even locks for the playoffs (although they are both looking good). The Cubs at 12:1 are pretty lousy bet too.

Fanhome's Dackle: World Series Odds (September 18, 2003)

Posted 11:36 a.m., September 18, 2003 (#7) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  The Yanks aren't a good bet either, you've always to pay extra for them. I've always wanted to track if betting against the Yankees all year would make you money, I'd imagine it would have to.

FANTASY CENTRAL (February 21, 2004)

Posted 3:22 a.m., February 23, 2004 (#13) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Tango - here's our system:

Offense

adjOBP - (H+BB+HBP-CS)/(PA)
TB+SB
R
RBI

Pitching

Full Categories (14 for first, 13 for 2nd etc.)
ERA
adjOPSagainst - ((OBPagainst*2)+SLGagainst))
Strikeouts

1/2 Categories (7 for first, 6.5 for 2nd, etc.)
Quality Starts
Relief Points (2*SV+RW+H-RL-BS)

We auction and have a cap of $263 for a 24 man roster (13 hitters, 10 pitchers, one utility that can be hitter or pitcher) 14 teams, NL only.

FANTASY CENTRAL (February 21, 2004)

Posted 3:25 a.m., February 23, 2004 (#14) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  Here's the long version of the pitcher aOPS category:

(2*((HA+BBI+HB)/PA))+(TBA/ABA)

EconPapers: Steven Levitt (February 24, 2004)

Posted 4:57 a.m., February 29, 2004 (#7) - Joe Dimino(e-mail)
  "Bookmakers are more skilled at predicting the outcomes of games than bettors and are able to systematically exploit bettor biases by choosing prices that deviate from the market clearing price"

I disagree with this - bookmakers set the price where the action will be equal on both sides, and they charge a premium for 'purchasing' either side, this premium is the only thing that makes it profitable to be a bookmaker in the long run. They will (contrary to what this article states) move the price if too much action comes in on either side. Sometimes the move the line, other times the raise the premium for one side while lowering it for the other. They'll use the latter technique if the 'number' is one that could cause them to lose on both sides by moving it, like a 3 point line in a football game, for example.

Am I missing something, or did I read the article incorrectly?