Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

OPS: Begone!

May 20, 2003 - Patriot

If the effect of taking pitches and the like was so great, then a formula predicting runs that weighted OBA 3x as much as SLG would be a better predictor than one that doesn't. It isn't. For predicting team runs, something like 1.8OBA+SLG correlates best as Tango says.

How are Runs Really Created

August 12, 2002 - Patriot (www) (e-mail)

Vinay: "I will talk more about how to understand the out in the frame of reference of Runs Created and Linear Weights in my next article. And I will apply David Smyth's BaseRuns, a constructor that models reality in almost all run environments. "

Excellent article, Tango.

How are Runs Really Created - Second Installment

August 20, 2002 - Patriot (www)

Hmm...this article has been posted for more than a day and there is no response. How come everyone yawns when Base Runs is introduced?

How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment

September 17, 2002 - Patriot

You would think that Tango had tried to take down Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny! Good grief!

"The competitors are not trying to work for extreme cases" So? That somehow makes it wrong to attempt to model the extremes? If we can have an estimator that works well for the extremes, we can study so much more than we can with Runs Created. Should Barry Bonds be walked every time up? I dunno. Let's see. Barry has 200 basic RC or so last year, in 600 PA. How many basic RC would he have had if he was walked all 600 times: 600*0/600=0! 0 RC! Yep, walk him every time up! For that matter, walk everybody every time up, and they will never score!

It is true that the method that we use should be accurate for normal cases. But somebody mentioned that if BsR is 1% less accurate in normal cases then RC or LW, it is "1 step forward and two steps back". BS. 1% error for a true 100 RC player means we would be erring and saying he actually created 99 or 101 runs. 1 run! Who cares? I hope no one here thinks 1 run over the course of a whole season is very significant.

Of course, BsR IS accurate in the normal range of offense. Comparable to LW, definitely more accurate than RC.

Some dogmatic person criticized Tango for saying that "RC is dead". RC is dead! It is grossly flawed! This should be obvious to everyone. We KNOW that it overrestimates Barry Bonds, and yet we defend it simple because we have used it for 20 years? Come on.

How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment

September 17, 2002 - Patriot

Well, I am one of the FanHome people and we have been championing BsR for quite some time. Of course, this is NOT the first introduction of BsR to the general sabermetric public. Mr. Smyth posted the method on r.s.bb and on James Fraser's site. I wrote a little bit on it for SABR's BTN. And Tango has been doing outstanding work on verifying the formula's accuracy, and trying to improve it. Until now, there have been no real reactions to it outside of the FanHome board. It's not like some secret club that you can't get in on. Now all of a sudden, the biggest step forward in RC methods is being questioned by people who ignored it for a year or two. That's a little annoying; where were you before?

Now, to adress Arvid, if we are estimating how many runs Barry has produced, we need a better method than RC for sure. And we know that when we add Barry to the system, all of the LW values will change. Now you can choose to evaluate Barry in the league neutral context, or you can attempt to evaluate the "theoretical team", as BJames does in the New RC. If you want to include the team interaction stuff, you need a method that properly estimates the number of runs a team will score, with the values of each event being dynamic. RC doesn't work. You need BsR if you want to do this.

Really, every RC method is a LW method. You can determine the "effective" weights using the +1 method. RC, again, is irrelevent, because it simply does not work. To assume that LW values stay static is also very wrong. The coefficients are not the same today as they were in 1968. So we need a method that will give us an accurate estimate of the LW. BsR is that method.

Tango is a big fan of LW. There is nothing wrong with using a LW formula to evaluate a player-as a matter of fact, I would encourage it and I believe Tango does too. But we cannot simply use a formula like ERP or XR over all contexts if we want to be correct. You can think of BsR as a method of estimating the LWs if it makes you feel better. There's nothing wrong with LW, but static LW ARE wrong.

As to "how are runs generated", is that really such an answered question? We have static LW saying each single produces .5 runs, and each double produces .8 runs on average. WRONG. A Rey Ordonez team will not score .5 runs/single. We have RC saying that a HR, by itself, is worth 4 runs. WRONG. We need BsR. BsR is right! It is an absoulte fact that runs=baserunners*%whoscore+HR. What we need to focus on, and what Tango has suggested in this piece, is to find the best way to estimate the % of runners who score. However, runs=baserunners*%whoscore+HR never occured to me until I read Smyth's work. And I have not seen any other sabermetricians advocating measuring like this. So BsR IS a big step forward in our understanding of how runs are created.

Paul, again you cannot deny that runs=baserunners*%whoscore+HR. Again, let's find out how we can best estimate the scoring %. You guys are quibbling over the NEED for such a method, which seems ludicrous to me. Did you guys question the need for Davenport's custom exponent method for estimating pythagorean W%. Actually, thanks to another brilliant insight by David Smyth we may be able to get better pythagorean exponents. We need methods that hold up theoretically, in all cases, so we can feel confident using our methods for all situations. If I estimate the number of runs that will score in a 1 hit game using LW, I can't be confident in that result. And that, BTW, is a very good example of an extreme: the individual game.

And maybe I'm just a fool, but I am surprised that anyone would be put off by "RC is dead".

How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment

September 18, 2002 - Patriot (www) (e-mail)

"But when somebody comes along and declares “the old ways are dead and the toy I use is the way of the future”--well, there’s plenty of hubris in that kind of declaration, and it begs for closer examination."

Forget that Base Runs even exists. RC is still clearly wrong, and worthless.

Shouting down questions? I did that the first time. Then I wrote 600 words explaining my opinion on BsR, LW, etc. Of course, you have nothing to say about this, you only question my tone. And as for absolute truth, R=BR*%score+HR is true. The question is [b]How best to estimate score rate?[/b] As Tango said and as I have repeated, this is still an open question. Therefore, BsR is not absolute truth. It is clear from the evidence presented by Tango, though, that for its purpose, it is the best method currently available.

Tony Eason? I HATE those Patriots. Anyway, I have not developed this system, please don't get that misconception. I am just someone who has seen the research and has agreed with it. David and Tango did the work.

Game based and season based data has nothing to do with anything! You can run a regression for the needed B component based on team seasonal totals, and get a reasonable answer, and a similar one to Tango's analysis. Not only that, but a "game" based linear regression will very little different then a "season" based one. You do not need seperate formula for 1 game, 5 games, 50 games, 162 games, 1000 games, 1 million games. You just need a formula for runs. I have the 1990 and 1991 game-by-game team offensive totals here. Running a regression: R=.48S+.75D+1.18T+1.41HR+.32W-.087(AB-H) This is about what you would expect. However, this formula will not work for a game in which there is 1 HR and 27 outs, because it will predict -.9 runs. Static LW simply do not work with extremes.

As to limiting our regression for high offense seasons, that might work, but how many LW formulas are we going to have. "Well, we use this one when the OBA<.1 and the SLG is <.15, and this one is for when the OBA>.5, and the SLG is >.7", this is ludicrous. What we need is a way to *estimate* LW for any conditions. BsR, BsR, BsR. "2. Somewhat less accuracy in normal run-scoring environments." For 1980-2000, using the basic version of XR, the basic version of RC, and a variation of BsR, the RMSEs for team runs in a season are: XR=23.7, BsR=23.9, RC=25.8 Are you REALLY concearned about .2 runs/162 games, and you are going to let this get in the way of having 1 formula that will give a REASONABLE estimate over almost the entire spectrum of offense? If accuracy for a season is the only thing that matters, then linear regression is the only answer, because it will be the most accurate pretty much by definition. Rating a stat with a RMSE of 23.7 as better than one with a RMSE of 23.9 is like rating a .300 hitter as better then a .297 hitter.

SABR 301 - Talent Distributions (June 5, 2003)

Posted 12:33 p.m., June 5, 2003 (#6) - Patriot
  #4 and 5...my point exactly. Of course, I understand that it would be a big hassle for Primer to have a registration system so I can't blame them for not having one.

The idea of the median player may have some applications, but average is still very important because that is your opponent. Using median as a baseline has basically the same pitfalls as using average and doesn't change much...plus it isn't nearly as useful.

SABR 101 - Relative and Absolute Scales (June 6, 2003)

Posted 5:32 p.m., June 6, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  It's amazing that someone as smart and prominent as Bill James either does not recognize the difference here or purposefully ignores it to advance his agenda.

SABR 101 - Relative and Absolute Scales (June 6, 2003)

Posted 7:03 p.m., June 7, 2003 (#4) - Patriot
  I was referring(although I failed to mention so) to the section about negative value and playing time. In Win Shares, he says things like
"Total Baseball tells us that Kaline was better than Clemente, that Billy Herman was three times the player Buddy Myer was"

No, Bill, it's saying that Herman contributed three times as many wins above what an average player would have as Myer did.

"So, in the Linear Weights analysis, if you trade a nobody, a player who never plays in the major leagues, and you only get some guy who 1500 major league games and hits .260 with 180 homers--not an average outfielder--well, Linear Weights would say that you've made a bad trade."

Well, Bill, only a fool would use RAA to compare a guy who never played in the majors to one who did. Speaking of which, I have a higher TPR than Rey Ordonez. Only an idiot would take that to mean that I am in fact a better player.

Then he goes on to say, "I'm not saying that Linear Weights is a bad system. It simply is not designed to analyze trades, and it won't." True. But then why did you rip on it, Bill, as if you expected it to analyze trades for you?

"The fatal error in the method of measuring players as better or worse than .500 is that it forces one into the assumption that value consists in being better than average."

True, if the temperature being -2 degrees means that there is no heat.

SABR 101 - Relative and Absolute Scales (June 6, 2003)

Posted 2:18 p.m., June 9, 2003 (#10) - Patriot
  Measuring players' value from above average may not be the best option, but at least I can defend it as saying that it is his value above his opponent. The baseline(s) used in Win Shares are, as far as I know, completely unjustifiable in every way because 1)they are not really absolute values and 2)even if they were, they would need to be considered with losses. So BJ attacking the baseline of the Palmer system is really quite ironic. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but at least Palmer could explain what his is doing. James could not truthfully explain what the baseline of Win Shares is. We know what he passes it off as(absolute), but it is quite obvious that this is hocum.

And getting off the issue of which baseline is right or defensible, and back to my original point about James, is that that first quote that I posted proves that he either does not understand or purposefully does not state the truth about the average baseline. To say that "TB says X is 3 times the player Y is" is just false. Even a true absolute method would not be saying "X is 3 times the player"--it would be saying that "X is 3 times more valuable to a major league team". Whether you consider the semantics to be important is up to you. I do.

A Study of the Barrel Constructions of Baseball Bats (June 9, 2003)

Posted 9:41 a.m., June 10, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  Whatever advantage the hitter gets from a corked bat must pale in comparison to the added movement on a spitball. But yet Sammy Sosa is the cause of evil in the modern world and Gaylord Perry makes for some funny anecdotes.

SABR 201: Linear Weights by the 24 base/out states, 1999-2002 (June 10, 2003)

Posted 10:25 a.m., June 14, 2003 (#16) - Patriot
  I have no clue why they go bad(they do it for all of the FanHome boards from time to time), but you can always just go to fanhome.theinsiders.com and then to baseball and find it from there.

After Sabre-School Special (June 19, 2003)

Posted 7:37 p.m., June 19, 2003 (#4) - Patriot
  I'm not sure I quite understand the idea of a random team. I know that Wolverton does this in his Pennants method as well.

If you put the player on every possible random team, and then weighted the player's performance by the percentage of actual teams that perform at that level, would not the result be almost the exact same thing as just sticking him on the average team? Maybe I am missing the boat here, I'm not debating, I'm asking.

OTOH, I do see what you're saying about OBA v SLG. A higher OBA is pretty much always a good tradeoff.

After Sabre-School Special (June 19, 2003)

Posted 8:45 p.m., June 19, 2003 (#8) - Patriot
  Don't get me wrong, I say go for it and see what you find. See if the added complexity is worth the extra work, and if it is, then great.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 9:48 a.m., June 26, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  I think this is very interesting because we(mostly you and Rob, actually) discussed this from the perspective of a team, and how expansion teams went from replacement level to .500 in X years. He comes at it from a different approach that gives similar results. Looking back at the thread in question, I see that you had a rough formula based on the team approach, W/L=.12ln(X)+.65, with X being years. If you convert this to a run ration rather than a win ratio and compare to Nate's formula using his assumption of 800 runs and 650 PA, you have:
YEARS Repl-Nate Repl-Tango
1 .76 .81
2 .84 .86
3 .88 .88
4 .92 .90
5 .94 .92
6 .96 .93
The estimates get further apart as you go, but it is encouraging to see some similar results from two approaches based on the same general concept but approaching it in radically different ways.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 11:04 a.m., June 26, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  "The other thing that we should remember is that Nate groups them by classes, when really, we want the aggregate to that point. "

So you're saying that Barry's first 500 AB should be included in that group, right? Because when we start out(ignoring minor league data), we can't tell the difference between Rey and Barry. Makes sense.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 6:02 p.m., June 26, 2003 (#8) - Patriot
  I'm not sure you can make judgements like that based on 1/2 season at one position. Catchers are quite possibly picked for their defensive contributions more than their offensive contributions, and it seems as if backup catchers especially tend to be catch and throw type guys, and most of the guys who are listed by BP as below replacement have few PA. The great majority of the starting catchers rate as above replacement level as we would expect.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 7:53 p.m., June 27, 2003 (#19) - Patriot
  On the PBP level, the player's value is not against who would be there if he wasn't, it is against the real .500 opponent that he is playing against. It's how the player changes the WE while he's on the field. That is his real value in the game. His value to the team is dependent on other factors, like how he compares to his potential replacement.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 10:00 p.m., June 27, 2003 (#21) - Patriot
  I didn't expect you to agree :) But the very nature of Win Expectancy causes it to be in relation to a .500 probability of winning the game when it begins. This is natural and inherent in using a WE or RE system. You can argue that it should be fudged from that point, but it all starts with comparing to .500,

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 9:33 a.m., June 28, 2003 (#24) - Patriot
  Not to get too picky here, but if Sosa is missing 1 PA at a time, there's no reason to think that the average player who takes his place will be .375. Part of the idea of chaining, at least as I orginially intended it, was that most teams have bench players who are maybe .425 players. Your best bat off the bench is usually not a FAT player. That is the guy who will get Sosa's PA. And the chaining occurs when the .375 bum has to take his role. But since his role involves 1 PA/G and Sammy's involves 4, the effect on the team is something like replacing Sammy with a .405 player instead of a .375 player.

As for different baselines for different needs, sure. But don't we look at a career and a season as different needs, or at least we consider doing so? The whole idea of pennant value comes from saying that 10 WAR for a career distributed 1/year isn't the same as 2 seasons of 5 WAR. We are basically using a different comparison point for different units. For a season, your replacement will be the 80% guy. But for five years, the replacement will be a 93% guy or something. It seems to me as if the entire idea of peak/career, pennant value, etc. is an admission by most sabermetricians that it is ok to use different comparison points for different but similar questions. The questions of career value and seasonal value are similar, but I don't see why they can't have 2 seperate answers.

I do realize that I am rehashing the same argument we have had many times before.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 9:45 a.m., June 28, 2003 (#25) - Patriot
  You can tell me if if I'm way off base here. I'm not even sure I agree with this, but...to me, it seems as if the entire idea of value above a non-.500 baseline is somewhat forward looking in nature, or backwards looking in the "what if" sense. If we look back at the completed record of a season, some combination of players has actually gone out and made 4000 outs for the team, and now it's over. Player A, a .490 with 500 PA, has hurt the team's chances of winning. Period. It doesn't matter, in retrospect, whether he was a better option than the .375 player. The .375 player never played, he's irrelevant. The .510 player with 1 PA has increased his team's chances of winning. Period. It doesn't matter if he at some point was considered less valuable then Player A because he would only get 1 PA. His net contributiom has been positive. If we add up all of the WAA for everybody in the league, it's 0. The league is at 0 WAA, and the sum of it's players are at 0 WAA. Measuring against replacement, once we already know what these guys have done, is saying "what would have happened if Player A had been lost?" But Player A was not lost. It is a moot issue in retrospect.

Now this does not mean that Player A does not have value; anybody who's over 0 has done something positive to help the team. Player A still has value over a .375 player, and that is important for the future. We'd expect Player A to be a more useful part of a team than Player B next season. But that does not change what has already happened.

Since the question of "who is better" usually means "who would you rather have on your team", some sort of replacement baseline is the right choice to answer the question. But for what has actually happened, value comes in being better than your opponent, not than being better than the guy who would replace you ig you got hurt which you didn't.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 10:06 a.m., June 29, 2003 (#28) - Patriot
  That's not what I'm saying. Your opponent is .500, relative to the league. It is what you do in relation to your opponent that determines whether you win or not.

Obviously, when the DRays play the Yankees, they have say a 40% chance to win. But their average opponent for the entire season is a .500 team. If they outperform .500, they win. If they underperform .500, they lose.

No one is saying that a .490 player has no value. But they have negative value compared to the opponent. As I said, that 2nd post of mine was just kind of a thinking out loud exercise, and I agree that the baseline we want to use for most things is not .500.

I think the fundamental difference between your view and the Tango/Patriot view(at leas it seems like Tango and I agree on a lot of this) is that you are looking at the player's value within the league, and we are looking at it within the team. Going back to chaining, unless I am misinterpreting your argument, you say that the replacement level or FAT level or sustenance level or whatever we want to call it does not change when one player goes down, and so everyone's value is still measured against this constant line. We're looking at the team and seeing how that specific team is effected if the player goes down. Now it seems to me as if the league approach is the correct one for ability, and the team approach is the correct one for value.

Redefining Replacement Level (June 26, 2003)

Posted 8:17 p.m., June 29, 2003 (#30) - Patriot
  Now I think we are confusing sliding or time-dependent replacement level with chaining. I didn't specify that my last post was on chaining. The two can work together, I suppose, but I have not really done that.

But the time dependent approach is to determine a player's career value. That's not necessarily germane to the question of value to the team. The player's career values could be different. Their value to the team in the season, against their chained replacement, will be identical.

Chaining is what I was referring to last post about being from the team perspective. That is my fault for not specifying.

Sabermetric Site to Visit - ESPN (July 25, 2003)

Posted 7:43 p.m., July 25, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  Thanks, I didn't know about this. Too bad they use RC, but I guess it's progress just to have it. I never would have guessed that Trot was 4th in R/O.

Sabermetric Site to Visit - Patriot (July 25, 2003)

Posted 7:25 p.m., July 25, 2003 (#4) - Patriot
  I'm only complimentary to people who deserve it. I'm not so nice to that guy from the baseball library website :)

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 4:55 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#12) - Patriot
  Could someone please explain to me what they learned from Tippett's article that they didn't know before? I don't see anything in it that seriously contradicts Voros' work in any way.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 5:08 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#15) - Patriot
  I said "I don't think there is anything that [seriously] contradicts Voros in any way."

Nobody has ever concluded that pitchers DIDN'T have some ability over $H. I think most of the "revelations" of the Tippett study are the results of misunderstanding over Voros' work.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 5:21 p.m., August 1, 2003 (#19) - Patriot
  The original Voros comment of not "appearing to have ability" was clearly contradicted/corrected by his later work. "Hits allowed are not PARTICULARLY meaningful" still strikes me as an absolutely correct statment, depending on how you take "particularly".

BTW, my query was not posed specifically at you(many people have praised the Tippett article), so don't feel like I was challenging you or anything.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 3:42 p.m., August 2, 2003 (#39) - Patriot
  Dimino, how come you don't bring down your righteous fury on the guy ripping on Voros as well?

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 9:05 a.m., August 4, 2003 (#47) - Patriot
  Umm...#32

[i]Tippett's article exposes McCracken once again as a quick & dirty (albeit creative) researcher who seems more interested in making controversial statements than adding something to the understanding of the game. This behaviour represents the worst in sabermetrics: using incomplete numbers to shock the common sense and discard all observation-based analysis.[/i]

That's about as big of a "personal attack" as you can bring agaisnt someone from a sabermetric perspective.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 10:16 a.m., August 4, 2003 (#50) - Patriot
  I missed the FanHome "crack" from Joe. I am just dying to hear about all the "pricks" on FanHome.

Tippett and DIPS (August 1, 2003)

Posted 10:30 a.m., August 4, 2003 (#52) - Patriot
  "I love fanhome, all I'm saying is that they have no problems with ripping into people on a personal level over there"

Examples? Seriously, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are far more "personal attacks" on Primer than there are on FanHome.

DIPS year-to-year correlations, 1972-1992 (August 5, 2003)

Posted 12:27 p.m., August 9, 2003 (#73) - Patriot
  As you allude to, the idea that a defense would effect all the team's pitchers evenley is not really one that we can know for sure. I would guess that there would be large differences. A team with good outfielders will be better for a flyball pitcher. But what if they have Jeter and Baerga playing SS and 2B? The groundball pitchers are going to suffer. I have no problem believing that there is some pitcher influnce on $H, but I don't think the team correlations prove this.

Hoban - A player ranking (August 8, 2003)

Posted 12:08 p.m., August 8, 2003 (#2) - Patriot
  That's the kind of inorganic junk that makes sabermetricians look like a bunch of nerdy number crunchers.

BP - Sample size and park factors (August 11, 2003)

Posted 7:34 p.m., August 11, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  Tango, I'm not sure I get your point about run PFs having issues with how they treat various players. Obviously PFs of all kinds have sample size issues, selective sampling issues, interaction between the various parks issues...but the only reason I can see for using a run based PF is if you are after value. And if it's value, I don't care that McGee doesn't benefit as much as Clark, I just care what value the runs had. Of course, then you get into the old BJ argument about using the team RPG instead of the PF...and then you get into all the various value defintions, etc.

Sorry for the hijack.

Advances in Sabermetrics (August 18, 2003)

Posted 9:38 a.m., August 19, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  Base Runs along with DIPS.

Advances in Sabermetrics (August 18, 2003)

Posted 2:48 p.m., August 19, 2003 (#11) - Patriot
  What if he had 100 PA? You still want me to guess .380? That's proposterous.

Advances in Sabermetrics (August 18, 2003)

Posted 6:51 p.m., August 19, 2003 (#19) - Patriot
  Yeah, mentioning what somebody said and then using that as the starting point for a discussion is really disgraceful.

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 3:00 p.m., August 25, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  The interesting part about the BP's problem with replacement level is that the Woolner study should have shown them that this was the case. The Woolner study set the replacement level at 80%, except for catcher(85%) and first base(75%). A simple and IMO logical explanation for this is that since first baseman are chosen more on offensive ability, the replacement first baseman tend to be worse hitters but better fielders then the replacements at other positions(relative to their position of course), and the opposite for catchers.

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 3:52 p.m., August 25, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  That has interesting applications beyond just the old baseline debates it seems. For instance, it would seem as if the proper baseline for a fielding method would be .500, since the replacement level player will do the same. Obviously we know there are better fielders out there, but if they never actually get to play, we shouldn't really care in a value method.

Furthermore, that suggests that the proper way to measure a player is to compare their hitting to a replacement at their position(I would still advocate the chained replacement or some different approach altogether), and then just tack on the runs saved above average on defense. It helps Edgar Martinez' HOF case, IMO. If we know that the guy who "replaces" him in the field will most likely be average, he shouldn't be penalized for being a DH. I guess you could say that his being a DH limits the team's flexibility, so maybe a small penalty, but not the crippling one that he would get if everybody else has their fielding measured vs. a replacement level fielder.

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 4:29 p.m., August 25, 2003 (#6) - Patriot
  That may well be the case, and there may be some very defendable logic behind it. But as Tango pointed out, it kind of torches the whole idea of comparing pitchers to hitters. Also, the entire idea of a replacement level in the first place rather than some other baseline is to attempt to conform to the economic/structural realities of baseball teams. If you're not doing that, what's the point?

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 9:48 p.m., August 25, 2003 (#11) - Patriot
  I knew that. I said "That may well be the case, and there may be some very defendable logic behind it". Don't take my refutation that follows as trying to explain why you were wrong; just fleshing out my position a little more.

I sent an email to BP a while back about how MLV still is wrong for using RC as its basis, and never got a reply. I also sent Shandler an email about his lousy RAR method and never got a reply. However, I assume they get a lot of email and don't have time to answer all of them. But this is a very logical criticism and I would hope that they at least consider it.

Double-counting Replacement Level (August 25, 2003)

Posted 6:23 p.m., August 26, 2003 (#13) - Patriot
  I have some numbers based on ERP/out from 1990-1993 that I did a while ago. I know it's not exactly what you're looking for but I have all the data already. I took the guy with the most Games Played at the position as the starter. Here are the ERP/outs as % of league average at each position:
pos reg others
2 98.1 70.7
3 124.9 99.3
4 99.3 75.0
5 103.3 78.9
6 83.7 74.3
of 111.4 84.9
dh 1.171 89.9

the differences/450 outs(assuming .175 r/o for the league)
pos diff
2 21.6
3 20.1
4 19.1
5 19.2
6 7.4
of 20.9
dh 21.4

About 20 runs difference except for SS which is a major outlier here.

Empirical Win Probabilities (August 28, 2003)

Posted 7:31 p.m., August 28, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  By "anomolies" do you mean things like say for example, with a 3 run defecit in the 6th, 2 outs, and a runner at first, you have a lesser chance of winning then you do with no one on base in the same situation? If you look at some of the sample sizes on these, I don't think that would be too surprising if some of that happened. I think to get accurate Win Probs you would have to do a simulation as Tango does. The empirical approach may work for RE, but probably not for WE.

Bonds, Pujols and BaseRuns (September 6, 2003)

Posted 9:55 p.m., March 18, 2004 (#36) - Patriot
  I agree with David that the fudge can go on the A as well. However, Davenport also applied it to D, and that nukes the whole 1 run = 1 home run thing.

But if you had a perfect dataset, you would know A for sure, and you would know C and D for sure, and you would only be able to fudge B. But as you point out, we don't always have or use the full data set.

Accuracy of Run Estimators (September 12, 2003)

Posted 11:56 a.m., September 12, 2003 (#2) - Patriot
  I agree with all of Tango's comments about not wanting to test on the data used to develop the formulas, etc. The main purpose, though, was to test BsR against XR, ERP, RC, and other formulas that aren't based on that sample. BsR aquits itself quite nicely.

The last tests were requested by David to see if the BsR structure could produce a more accurate estimator than the linear best-fit, within the data that it was developed for, and the answer, at least there, is yes. I agree, though, it doesn't prove anything.

Accuracy of Run Estimators (September 12, 2003)

Posted 12:22 p.m., September 12, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  I did a quick test on Tango's even/odd idea. I used the odd years to get the linear best fit and applied it to the evens--RMSE was 23.76. For comparison, ERP in the same sample, not customized for that specific period(although I'm not sure where I got the ".322" mutliplier in the first place, it probably overlapped with that somehow) came in at 23.98. BsR(again, not a fitted version) came in at 23.64.

Accuracy of Run Estimators (September 12, 2003)

Posted 2:43 p.m., September 12, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  I sort of did what Tango suggested. I didn't fit the formulas to match the actual emprical weights he published, I just fit them to equal overall runs for 1974-1990. Then I found the RMSE of them against the 61-72 and 91-02 data for ERP, BsR, Tango's empirical weights(the out value was the absolute needed for 74-90; the only problem here is that Tango's CS coefficient is for RAA I think), and the linear best fit for 74-90. Anyway:
61-72:
Tango--22.87
BsR----23.16
ERP----23.60
Reg----23.82
91-02:
BsR----23.17
Reg----23.25
ERP----23.38
Emp----24.17

Accuracy of Run Estimators (September 12, 2003)

Posted 2:49 p.m., September 12, 2003 (#6) - Patriot
  BTW, the "Emp" in the 91-02 listing is Tango's empirical weights, identified as "Tango" in the 61-72 list.

Probably doesn't mean anything, but I find it interesting that BsR's accuracy is virtually identical for both periods.

Accuracy of Run Estimators (September 12, 2003)

Posted 8:54 p.m., September 13, 2003 (#17) - Patriot
  No bashing, but healthy disagreement:)...LW are LW. I prefer the empirical ones--there's no reason why not to. But I still see the room for an ERP or an XR or an EQR(since it's BASICALLY LW) when you don't have the PBP data for the sample or you want one formula that will work with a large set of conditions(not that the 1980 empircal LW will do that bad in 1990 or anything though). ERP is nice and easy and you don't need to remeber whether it's .52S or .48S.

And now this is flat out nitpicking, but Lindsey is actually the one who invented LW. His formula was empirical LW, IIRC(minus walks and outs).

DIPS bookmarks (September 13, 2003)

Posted 10:10 a.m., September 14, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  This is a pretty cool resource James is putting together over there. I used to visit his site almost daily back when he was updating it a couple years ago, and now I think I'll have to start again. I see that he's working on organizing some of the old FanHome discussions into some workable format, which is a great effort.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 10:23 a.m., September 18, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  I'm glad somebody was amused by that article.

I know(or at least I think I know) what David will say if he reads us advocating multiple or pick-your-own baselines, which is that for the "general question" of value, you need a single baseline, and that the minimum level of ability needed to play in the majors is the best one.

I agree with Michael that chaining is very hard to model, and therefore may be a good idea but not a very practical one.

I don't know if anyone thought anything of the "multi-tiered" idea I had at the end of that article, and I realize that it is very unwieldly. My point behind it though, is "does a .390 player have value to helping a major league team win more games then they would with a FAT or whatever you want to call him player in his place"? Absolutely. But if I make that .390 player bat 500 times, does he have value? Well, he still does over the FAT player, but using a .390 player as a regular is really going to kill me. He might have value for 100 or 200 or even 300 PA, but after that, you should have somebody better. Of course, this will rightfully be rejected by someone who assumes that you are measuring value to a team with all FAT players. I guess the "multi-tiered" model implicitly assumes that you are dealing with an average type ML team.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 10:04 a.m., September 19, 2003 (#10) - Patriot
  Yeah, what Tango said. We can't really know for sure what the FAT line is. And I don't think there's really a line. There's no magic divider point at which there are suddenly tons of available players. It's a curve. There are more .700 players then .800 players, and in turn there are more .600 players then .700 players, etc. This gets steeper as you go of course, becuase there are 4 billion .000 players available. But there's still no one magic number IMO.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 8:12 p.m., September 19, 2003 (#16) - Patriot
  You are correct about the various approaches that I prefer dealing with an average team construct. But also remember that whatever RC number I'm using in there is also based on the player being on an average team. It seems to me that if you are going to use the approach of a minimum team, you should do it the whole way through, including your RC number. Of course, I have seen David many times talk about using a replacement team rather than an average team in a TT construct and such things, so it seems like something he has considered.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 12:57 p.m., November 12, 2003 (#23) - Patriot
  Where did Palmer say that bit about the sub-.500 team can't make the playoffs? I believe you, I'd just like to read it myself. Maybe in an early TB?

Anyway, in the last edition of TB, he gives a longer explanation that is a lot closer to what I would argue. I quoted it extensively(probably in violation of every copywrite statute :) in my article.

I agree that if he just says "below .500=no playoffs" that that is weak. The argument he used later was a lot more substantiative.

And I also agree that James may be right in assesing Palmer's intent, but he bashes "Linear Weights" over and over again. I realize that "Linear Weights" is the name of the system that Palmer invented, but it's unfair IMO to not point out the distinction for your readers(which James didn't)...especially when you're own RC formula is 89% linear. Attack the baseline used in the system, not the system itself.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 11:09 a.m., November 13, 2003 (#26) - Patriot
  Well, the quote I got is from TB #7, which I think is the last. But I could be wrong

If anyone is having trouble finding the Palmer excerpt in my article, it's under the heading "AVERAGE" and in italics.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 3:48 p.m., November 13, 2003 (#28) - Patriot
  Gotcha.

Patriot: Baselines (September 17, 2003)

Posted 3:50 p.m., November 13, 2003 (#29) - Patriot
  Gotcha.

Sabermetrics >WIN SHARES bibliography (September 19, 2003)

Posted 6:47 p.m., September 19, 2003 (#2) - Patriot
  Nothing about you? Aren't you linked as "2003 Data"? :)

Instructions for MVP (September 22, 2003)

Posted 10:26 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#18) - Patriot
  No, that's how he's interpreting something that is left wide open to his interpretation.

And as for number of games played, yes, that's a criteria, but the "strength" of Pedro Martinez' defense is much greater then the strength of ARod's offense on a per game basis. That's the point--a combination of quality and quantity. You can argue all day about how to blend quality and quantity, but if games played was the only criteria, Cal Ripken would have been the MVP 15 times.

Instructions for MVP (September 22, 2003)

Posted 11:33 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#20) - Patriot
  "And it is appears to be a perfectly legitimate position that a pitcher's "quality" - especially a relief pitcher's - can not overcome the quantity issue."

There is nothing in those guidelines that implies that this is the case. If you somehow conclude this, more power to you.

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 5:42 p.m., October 1, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  Me too, me too!

These are based on 5 yrs when applicable and use some regression factors suggested a long time ago by MGL.
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UEB7P1bJtCjOJ14uT6Xqpb2VOxevTjMytN_f3KnWuBdrh1VVf_WRVr4FukHN-vjEcr61vM0oH2A0U3xpc-aomBuqXK4/PF.xls

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 7:09 p.m., October 1, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  Thanks.

Maybe this would be easier though. Click on "Park Factors". This page also has an explanation of how they are figured.
http://gosu02.tripod.com/osusaber/id19.html

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 10:50 a.m., October 2, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  Oh, ok. They work on my machine, but I guess it makes sense that they wouldn't work for anybody elses. I'll get on it :)

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 11:16 a.m., October 2, 2003 (#6) - Patriot (homepage)
  If this doesn't work, I give up.

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 12:09 p.m., October 2, 2003 (#8) - Patriot
  Oh yeah, I should cite the data I used. I got the previous 4 years data from KJOK's excellent database which is floating around on the net somewhere(can't remember right now). And the 2003 data was from MLB.com.

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 7:00 p.m., October 10, 2003 (#22) - Patriot
  Another annoying inconsistency in WS. It is supposed to be straight value, but it uses ERC for relievers(in concert with RA/ERA). I understand that Bill might think that since relievers sometimes do bad and give up runs but aren't charged with them ERC has some use even in a value method for relievers. But now days, you have the inherited runner stats which can help you with that. In many other places in WS, Bill has no problem using different info for different eras, why not there?

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 7:51 p.m., October 10, 2003 (#24) - Patriot
  If that's the case, would you like a laundry list of complaints :)?

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 8:01 p.m., October 10, 2003 (#26) - Patriot(e-mail)
  I'll take one please.

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 10:14 a.m., October 11, 2003 (#1) - Patriot
  Actually, I saw this posted a long time ago on rsbb by David Glass. I'll see if I can dig it up:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22pythagorean%22+%22glass%22++group:rec.sport.baseball.*+group:rec.sport.baseball.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.sport.baseball.*&selm=7r9ilk%241k2q%40enews4.newsguy.com&rnum=1

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 10:15 a.m., October 11, 2003 (#2) - Patriot
  He was using 1.83. Would your math still hold with a different exponent, or is it unique to 2?

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 10:39 a.m., October 11, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  That link doesn't work. Just search rsbb for "pythagorean" and "glass".

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 12:07 p.m., October 11, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  Hmm. I wonder why Glass came up with it using 1.83 then.

In the Pyth/Log5 article in one of the non-national Abstracts, Bill said that 2 was the most natural exponent. I don't know what the heck he meant, but it does seem like there are some nice tricks you can do with 2 that you can't do with others.

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 11:44 a.m., October 12, 2003 (#8) - Patriot
  I think David makes a great point in his post, and this creates a question for player evaluation methods. How should we convert RAR or RAA or whatever into wins? Should we use the approach that David does in BsW, using this method, or should we use a Palmer type converter?

Personally, I'd still prefer the Palmer type(also exemplified by Ben .91, etc), but I'm very open to being convinced otherwise. Maybe it all goes back to the underlying philosiphy behind your system. But to me, if teams with an RPG of 11 convert runs to win at 12.1:1 as Ben suggests rather than 11:1, then we should use 12.1. Each RPG level would presumably have a certain "average" level of luck.

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 2:05 p.m., October 12, 2003 (#10) - Patriot
  I understand that. And I know BsW does use it. That's why I was asking the question of which RPW converter we should use.

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 4:03 p.m., October 13, 2003 (#12) - Patriot
  I'm not sure I understand you're first comment. Tell me if I'm getting this wrong. The "luck" as you refer to it is the difference between using RPW=RPG(or 2*X as it has been described in this thread) and the empirically based RPW converters, right? If that's the case, then the Ben .91 does do this too, I think. It's saying that RPW=RPG/.91. So RPW is related linearily to RPG, but there is a difference between RPW and RPG. Then Palmer or our method goes a step further and makes it a non-linear relations.

The second part of your post makes sense to me. It's kind of like Davenports' "translations". He takes everyone and puts them into an ideal context with a .270 Lg BA, a Pyth exponent of 2, etc.

Pythag Expansion (October 11, 2003)

Posted 4:41 p.m., October 13, 2003 (#13) - Patriot
  If that's the case, then the Ben .91 does do this too[incorporate luck], I think

RISP for hitters and pitchers (October 13, 2003)

Posted 8:39 p.m., October 13, 2003 (#3) - Patriot
  Remember too that a reliever gives up runs that aren't incorporated in his run total. Including some kind of inherited runners condition(or going further like ARP, although it's a lot further) is necessary. Of course, the whole concept of actual RA or ERA lines up better with a batting stat that includes situational performance.

On the whole, I agree with the general point of Derek et al. If you're going to trumpet a value added method for pitchers, you should do it for hitters too.

Game State Matrix (October 13, 2003)

Posted 9:14 p.m., October 14, 2003 (#5) - Patriot
  I agree with that. One thing that has always bothered me about BA w/ RISP and the like...somebody on that team did something to get into scoring position. You create more runs by doing better w/ RISP then with nobody on base, but if you perform poorly with nobody on, you're denying your teammates opportunities.

Relevancy of the Post-season (October 16, 2003)

Posted 4:10 p.m., October 17, 2003 (#7) - Patriot
  I think the problem people have is seperating "best team" from "champion". Based on how I define "best team", Florida is most assuredly not the "best team". But that's not a slight to them. It's just a fact. They are the champions, and saying they're not the "best team" in no way diminishes the fact that they won the championship.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 11:13 p.m., October 24, 2003 (#29) - Patriot
  Schools? Sounds like a good time to plug OSU. However, we don't have any top baseball player(Frank Howard is easily our best), and while we have college football legends too many to count, our best NFL guy is probably Jim Parker. Some will tell you he's the best OG of all time, but that probably wouldn't get him ranked as a top 10 or 15 player. Hoops though, Havlicek and Lucas have to be up there somewhere. And we have the greatest golfer and T&F guy of all time.

Then Cleveland. Hmm. Bob Feller in baseball is not going to stack up. Mark Price...Larry Nance...Bingo Smith...LEBRON! That ain't gonna cut it. But we'll put Jim Brown up against anybody.

Cinci. The Big O played for the Royals and the Bearcats, so he's gotta count. Baseball, probably Joe Morgan. Football? Anthony Munoz I guess. Like Parker, might be the one of the greatest OL ever, but probably not enough to put him up with the QBs and HBs in most people's minds.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 1:22 p.m., October 26, 2003 (#33) - Patriot
  Cris Carter. Duh. I forgot him. He's up there with Parker for OSU.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 2:34 p.m., October 28, 2003 (#40) - Patriot
  I've always considered Speaker a Red Sock. Actually looking at his record, he's about 50/50 between BOS and CLE, so I guess we can count him. The early Cy Young with the Spiders too I suppose, although Speaker is probably better.

Results of the Forecast Experiment, Part 2 (October 27, 2003)

Posted 6:20 p.m., October 27, 2003 (#25) - Patriot
  If you've got nothing better to do, I'd like to see mine please. Pat Burrell, JD Drew, Jose Hernandez all killed me I think.

Results of the Forecast Experiment, Part 2 (October 27, 2003)

Posted 10:46 a.m., October 28, 2003 (#47) - Patriot
  Holy cow. I did pretty good on the hitters, and AWFUL(ie 2nd or 3rd worst) on the pitchers. I could've sworn it would be the other way around.

Win Shares, Loss Shares, and Game Shares (November 15, 2003)

Posted 7:37 p.m., November 17, 2003 (#27) - Patriot
  Yep, FanHome does that fairly often. I've learned my lesson to copy the post before I hit enter.

ABB# (November 24, 2003)

Posted 9:51 p.m., November 26, 2003 (#29) - Patriot
  I cannot believe the mini-furor that has erupted over this little stat. Nobody ever claimed it was the be all and end all of player evaluation, and people want to evaluate it against that standard. EQA makes claims a lot more grandiose, and doesn't get as much grief, and it uses a scale fudge as well. This[the uproar, not the stat] is just so frickin stupid.

ABB# (November 24, 2003)

Posted 10:16 a.m., November 30, 2003 (#39) - Patriot
  What 34*OTS represents is the number of runs Barry Bonds would create playing with 8 of himself, but limited to the league average number of PA/G. At least as far as I can tell. OBA*SLG=Runs/At Bat. 34 is fairly close to the league AB/G for long term ML play.

Converted OBA (December 15, 2003)

Posted 10:28 p.m., December 16, 2003 (#16) - Patriot
  Arvin is probably a lot more knowledgeable about probabilities and the like then I am, but how can you not take league average into account? If you have a pitcher who gives up a .260 BA and a hitter with a .260 BA and they play in a league with a .250 BA, both BAs were compiled against lower BA opponents, so you'd expect it to go up when they face. But if the league BA is .300, then you'd expect it to go down. No?

The Base on Balls (December 24, 2003)

Posted 10:02 p.m., December 24, 2003 (#2) - Patriot
  Add Mr. Lane to LW history as an early, forgotten contributor.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 8:10 p.m., December 28, 2003 (#7) - Patriot
  Jamie Brown is a soft tosser from the Indians organization. He's a guy who never gets mentioned when they talk about our potential pitching prospects, and I've always wondered why. I didn't realize he had such good minor league numbers when adjusted for context, but I did know they were better than Paul Rigdon and Jason Phillips and other guys who the Indians have given chances.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 3:16 p.m., December 30, 2003 (#36) - Patriot
  You don't really need to use Voros' exact procedure. Tango's DIPS estimator should work fine for that study.

Besides, Voros' second article is not his actual DIPS procedure anyway. That is in his first article and requires league D and T, not team.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 3:17 p.m., December 30, 2003 (#37) - Patriot (homepage)
  BTW: John Jarvis has team D and T allowed

Super Bowl Notebook: Is Adams a genius' genius? (January 29, 2004)

Posted 1:48 p.m., January 29, 2004 (#5) - Patriot
  They weren't "geniuses" when they were in Cleveland...:)

Interesting article, though.

Batter's Box Analysis (February 5, 2004)

Posted 1:48 p.m., February 5, 2004 (#5) - Patriot (homepage)
  Manifested Power is very similar to the nameless Power measure Jim Furtado published a long time ago. The basic difference is in the weight of the EBHs(Jim used TB-S, which is 2D+3T+4HR). See homepage

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 4:46 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#13) - Patriot
  What David mentions strikes me as somewhat similar to what I wanted to do with QB rating. Everyone(this was on FH a while ago) was looking at a yards/attempt, and I wanted to factor in completions somehow. I felt that 5/10 for 50 yards was better then 1/10 for 50 yards. But I was the only one who felt that way, and now I can see why. My personal sympathies in both cases are with higher rates of success and equal results. Whether my personal sympathies have anything to do with reality is another matter.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 5:05 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#16) - Patriot
  Yes, but as J Cross pointed out, the other team gets the ball either way. And if you miss more shots, you theoretically should get more offensive rebounds.

And above, someone said that if a free throw is made, it counts as a field goal? That would be news to me.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 5:10 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#18) - Patriot
  Well, I said it was "somewhat similar", not completely analogous :)

I probably won't convince you otherwise, but my reasoning was that both of our players have produced the same thing(50 yards, 100 points), in the same number of attempts(10, 100). The only difference between the two statistically, in both cases, is their production per successful attempt. So the issue is, is production the only thing that counts(probably IMO), or is success rate the only thing that counts(no way), or is it some combination of the two.

In the QB case, I was saying "combination". In this case, you are saying "combination". I see them as similar situations. That doesn't mean that they have to have the same answer.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 5:13 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#19) - Patriot
  Edit: the difference is not only their production per successful attempt, but their success rate. The only thing that IS THE SAME is their overall production. Completely reversed what I should have said.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 5:58 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#24) - Patriot
  David...I agree that C% is probably mostly irrelevant.

And to get back to basketball, I know we can't do any better, because the stats are what the stats are, but there is, at least in my observation, a big difference between rebound rates on different types of 2 pt shots. A center who is standing under the basket and puts it up has a much better chance of getting the board then someone taking a baseline jumper. Or at least it seems to me.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 9:57 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#28) - Patriot
  Rally Monkey and dr feelgood, as I sort of indicated, I tend to agree with you. But I can't give a good "proof" of why...it just seems right to me. And I agree that the 5/10 guy is more likely to repeat his performance, but that doesn't necessarily make it more valuable.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:49 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#31) - Patriot
  But a QB is not the entire offense. The running game will have a lot to do with whether the drive continues or not. And the other QB already ended his drive with a TD. And not all completions are good. A 3rd and 9 completion for 6 yards...a -1 yard screen...etc. I think the 5/10 QB is better, as I said before, but I don't think it's a slam dunk.

Baseball: Pythagorean Method (February 11, 2004)

Posted 10:46 a.m., February 11, 2004 (#4) - Patriot
  Pythagopat sets the exponent to RPG^.28.

Baseball: Pythagorean Method (February 11, 2004)

Posted 10:56 a.m., February 11, 2004 (#6) - Patriot (homepage)
  Yeah, Pat is short for Patriot. It's not so much about RMS. It's about accuracy at the one point where we know for sure what the exponent is. That point is 1 RPG. The minimum RPG for any game is 1, because the game keeps going until someone scores. And if there is only one run scored in the game, the team that scored it wins. So if you play 160 games and score 90 runs and allow 70 runs, you go 90-70. So the exponent at RPG=1 must be 1.(This insight came from David). I think I came up with RPG^.29, and David something similar, and then Tango determined that .28 would work best for the most teams(there are 3 articles on his webpage...I linked one above).

Blog Entry of the Week (February 20, 2004)

Posted 3:05 p.m., February 20, 2004 (#3) - Patriot
  I'm with Dr. Scott. Gleeman's better than Rose ever was. Right now, Gleeman is like Mickey Mantle in 1953. He might be the greatest player of all time, or he might hit some bumps of some sort and "only" be the 20th greatest player of all time.

Blog Entry of the Week (February 20, 2004)

Posted 7:12 p.m., February 20, 2004 (#9) - Patriot
  I seriously doubt its a typo. Remember when Skip Bayless wrote something like, "Using the new stat On Base Plus Slugging, which is figured as R+RBI-HR..."

Batter's Box Team Previews (March 1, 2004)

Posted 4:48 p.m., March 1, 2004 (#2) - Patriot
  I don't know why Matt is so hostile towards GPA, but at least GPA manages to make a BA scale without messing up the proportional relationship between two players(unlike EQA).

Sorry for hijacking the DBacks thread.

More Help Requested (March 4, 2004)

Posted 12:32 p.m., March 5, 2004 (#5) - Patriot
  That person didn't even try. Everybody gets a string of the same # in each category for the most part.