Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Futility Infielder - 2003 DIPS (January 27, 2004)

Posted 1:42 p.m., January 27, 2004 (#11) - Kyle S
  I'd say the converse to #10 is also valid: just because a pitcher is unlucky by DIPS doesn't mean he isn't awful. For example, there might be a reason that Rusch allowed a .380 avg on BIP: maybe his terrible movement makes it easy to hit line drives, which turn into hits more often, or he rarely induces popouts. I don't think you can explain away his absolutely atrocious numbers last year with "bad defense."

How Valuable Is Base Running and Who Are the Best and the Worst? (February 10, 2004)

Posted 4:30 p.m., February 11, 2004 (#15) - Kyle S
  I have a question that is somewhat relevant here so I'll ask it and yall can make fun of me. Does run expectancy from the base/out Markov Chain states depend on team SLG? Intuitively, it seems like the marginal value of getting to 2nd base over first base is higher for a team that hits mostly singles as opposed to a high SLG team, which therefore might increase the value of a stolen base. However, I expect that the difference (if it even exists) will be tiny. Have any of yall looked at this?

FANTASY CENTRAL (February 21, 2004)

Posted 7:42 p.m., March 1, 2004 (#81) - Kyle S
  Comparative advantage doesn't have much relevance to fantasy baseball. Basically, it hypothesizes that if trade is free, each good will be produced by the actor and in the location that affords the lowest relative cost. For example, if the US can produce both guns and butter more cheaply than can Canada, which produces butter more cheaply than guns, the US should produce only guns and trade those guns for Canadian butter. The reason for this is opportunity cost: by producing 1 butter unit, the US might forgo 3 units of guns, which themselves can "buy" butter from Canada for less. Obviously, this isn't always true - some countries can't produce ANYTHING well, and they're pretty much screwed in international trade.

However, you can't "trade" for fantasy statistics this way - you can trade for players, whose statistics become part of your own production. If there was a commodities market for RBI, SB, etc, then maybe this would be true - kind of a cool idea.

The economics lesson that applies here is marginal analysis. If you already have A-Rod as your shortstop, the marginal benefit from Tejada is much less than if A-Rod were not already on your team; instead, you might draft someone expected to perform similarly to Tejada but playing a premium position like 2b, C, or (in fantasy) RP.

FANTASY CENTRAL (February 21, 2004)

Posted 12:37 a.m., March 8, 2004 (#113) - Kyle S
  Has anyone else bought the Prospectus annual and been, uh, underwhelmed by PECOTA? I realize the book uses weighted means instead of 50th percentile projections, and thus will project too little playing time for almost everyone (because it includes a 10th percentile <200 PA projection for regulars), but it still left me unsatisfied. I don't think I came across any regular from last year who it projected to have a "peak" year - anyone who had a good year last year was projected to regress to either their career average or below, anyone with a bad year projected to better but still below career average, and a few random people to fall off the table. Maybe that's just the nature of the weighted mean projections. I need to cough up the cash for the site :)

Wolverton - Wavin' Wendells - Outs on Base (March 12, 2004)

Posted 12:12 a.m., March 15, 2004 (#7) - Kyle S
  Idea I just had that seems to fit here, so I'll throw it out and let you guys make fun of me. I was looking over Sean Forman's lecture notes he has on his SJU website where he discusses bunting. He mentions that bunting from 2nd to 3rd with no outs decreases expected runs in either case (success/failure). As an afterthought he mentions that while bunting might decrease the expected run value of the inning, it increases the likelihood of one run.

Yeah, this is obvious. It's also obvious that expected runs still depend on the hitter - ie if your pitcher is up, it's likely that bunting has higher ERV than not bunting. However, what's being left out of this analysis that is implicit is the concept of risk.

in economic terms (i'm an economics student, as I suspect many primates are), risk describes the shape of your utility function. to a layman, it maps exactly how much "utility" (whatever that is) one gets from additional units of a good. mostly, utility curves are convex.. each additional dollar brings less happiness than the one before it, for example. similarly, the utility function of runs scored is nonlinear: the first run (or the go-ahead run) is much more valuable than the 2nd (or insurance) run, and so on.

It seems to me that a reasonably sophisticated analysis could take this all into account to try to answer questions like: do we bunt the guy to 2nd if the game is tied in the 8th? when is "expected run value" not very helpful? et cetera. Does this all seem out of line, or should i start putting more serious thought into it?

Wolverton - Wavin' Wendells - Outs on Base (March 12, 2004)

Posted 12:22 p.m., March 15, 2004 (#11) - Kyle S
  MGL, win expectancy sounds pretty close to what I was talking about, but I don't see how it can't include some measure of risk. My point was that in a tie game in late innings, given the choice between (15% chance of no runs 80% chance of 1 run and 5% chance of 2+ runs) versus (30% chance no runs 40 % chance 1 run 30% chance 2+ runs), although the run expectancy of the 2nd situation might be higher (i have no idea, i pulled those numbers out of the air), the first run is most important.

It seems like win expectancy accounts for this, so it doesn't matter. Perhaps we're saying the same thing - as the first instance has a higher chance of scoring "at least one" run so you would take it. I'll trust you since you've actually done the math.

The Scouting Report - Compared to UZR (March 23, 2004)

Posted 1:23 a.m., March 24, 2004 (#4) - Kyle S
  Are UZR totals available throughout the season? If not, it would (obviously) be great if you could collect a bunch of fan data before they were published, then compare 2004 fans vs 2004 UZR. J. Cross's idea should probably be employed anyway.

I should know this, but how well do year y UZRs correlate with year y+1? Given the nature of luck in fielding (as well as the greater effect of age on changes in fielding true talent year to year), I would guess it's probably a lot lower r than hitting LWTS?