Manual Award Voting - How Much Weight Do You Put On a Team Making The Playoffs?

[The Game]

I typically put a lot of weight for a team making the playoffs and will occasionally override the AI after asking them for picks. i have a dilemma this season in the NL. A rookie hit .421 (edited player but was supposed to hit .323) vs a RF Lenny Walker (Larry's fictional nephew) who had a WAR Derry 11.5 Walker 11.2. Derrys team made the playoffs, Walkers did not. Although Derry's WAR is higher I think Walker is more deserving.
Vote please.

[Dyzalot]

I don't understand this thread. Aren't these usually done when the guy on the playoff team has worse numbers than the guy on the team that didn't make the playoffs? I mean even if you ignored the playoffs and just looked at the pure numbers it would seem like Derry should win so if you put any stock on being on a playoff team then isn't this a "no brainer"? What makes you think Walker is more deserving?

[NoOne]

No, i wouldn't put any weight on making the playoffs.. if it were a team award, i'd be all for that metric. 1 player doesn't control enough to be penalized by team performance that is out of his control. in fact, it's more difficult to put up similar #'s with inferior players around you, and not just due to fewer plate appearances. there's a real benefit to having a more common base presence amongst other things.

one guy had a higher average, but lower doubles/hr per ab. (if league ba average is ~350, i might reverse opinion, but if it's at elast above average i'd stick to it. mvp shouldn't be average at making contact.)

~7% more PA, when you account for that, the hits difference isn't as large as it seems. imo, you don't penalize a guy for being on a weaker offensive team or ~4 spots different in a lineup on same team / similar offense.

i wouldn't say it's a runaway. i'd probably go with the guy with the highest rate of damage in this case - significantly more hr and such. fewer hits, but only singles and relative to # of PA or AB, a smaller gap than appears to the eye.

WAR isn't meant to be taken so literally/ordinally. a small to moderate difference is inconclusive. it wasn't meant to determine who is better on a 1:1 basis so strictly. it's meant to show that the .220ba guy with a 350obp might be as good or better than the .270ba guy with a .290obp in spite of traditional thought. (no idea where the break-even is without researching, so this is just a general concept that has a break even point that can be calculated within reason. for the record .220 is unacceptable on my teams, excluding a full time catcher here and there)

every single aspect of its weights are off a bit, and therefore compound into a bigger discrepancy when multiplied together for the resulting war (figuretively)... it doesn't mean it's worthelss info. it just means an 11war isnt necessarily better than a 10 war or how low?.

i've seen plenty of ~5war be superiour assets to a team than many obp/speedy guys that reach 7-10war. rakers get paid for more reasons that correlate with importance to a team than leadoff types. ie there's a reason bombers get paid more and it's rational.

[Dyzalot]

But it doesn't matter how small the gap is if the guy who is in the lead, no matter how small, is the one that was on a playoff team. Also 7% more PA means 7% more production. Not sure why you ding someone for playing more than someone else.

EDIT: Isn't the guy with the "higher rate of damage" the one with the higher OPS?

EDIT2: I find it strange that you make a big deal about how one guy has more HR and doubles to make up for that lower average and yet he only gives you a SLG % about 20 points higher. I don't even see it being close between them.

[TheMaus2]

How about an option for "No weight?"

[Matt Arnold]

WAR, when looking at MVP voting, really is only meant to put people in the same ballpark. They were close, so I basically count WAR as a tie. Walker has the extra power, but Derry has a ton more runs, and hit freaking .421 with 40+ HR. To me it's a no-brainer for Derry - the fact that his team made the playoffs while Walker's didn't is a no-brainer. Yeah, CF > 1B, which is why Walker is close, but man, .421.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

But it doesn't matter how small the gap is if the guy who is in the lead, no matter how small, is the one that was on a playoff team. Also 7% more PA means 7% more production. Not sure why you ding someone for playing more than someone else.

EDIT: Isn't the guy with the "higher rate of damage" the one with the higher OPS?

EDIT2: I find it strange that you make a big deal about how one guy has more HR and doubles to make up for that lower average and yet he only gives you a SLG % about 20 points higher. I don't even see it being close between them.

the 7% thing we are on same page. i'm deducting or adding in my head to compare apples to apples. doesn't matter which way you normalize it.

edit- not necessarily. remove singles and the one guy clearly has a tone more XBH, which rake in runners at a much higher % in more situations than singles do and espeically walks (ops includes them). the iso of one guy is much higher.

one guy is an ultimate leadoff guy on a deep team or a 3-4 guy on a weaker team... the slugger is a true slugger 3-4-5 depending on team / opinions etc and a total waste leading off.

this is a toss-up for all intents and purposes. i'm not beating a horse about it, just answering

edit 2 - that's because of what slugging is. it includes things in improper weights. it says a double is 2x a single and a triple is 3x a single etc.. based on nothign but a whim. it's not accurate, even though it does correlate.

iso power is still bad, but better sign of true power. i can't seen the image, but it's like a .060-.090 spread on iso power if i recall my glancing look and lackluster math.

one guy is an ideal raker (with stealing ability, woot) and teh other is a good raker and an ideal leadoff hitting style. when it's a push i go for the true raker. they get paid more for a reason.

my edit: it's ~.050 power iso spread in favor of the guy on right, in spite of their slugging pcts

also i switched to ops->slugging on your edit2, my bad, but similar things would be said. walks are not bringing in runs. few can rake 150+ rbi, many can score 120+runs, especially with a 56hr guy behind you in the order. a clod could do it. (not recommending that, of course)

last edit: lol... i'll throw this out there too... if either was on my team, they'd have the award really can't go wrong with either choice.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

the 7% thing we are on same page. i'm deducting or adding in my head to compare apples to apples. doesn't matter which way you normalize it.

edit- not necessarily. remove singles and the one guy clearly has a tone more XBH, which rake in runners at a much higher % in more situations than singles do and espeically walks (ops includes them). the iso of one guy is much higher.

one guy is an ultimate leadoff guy on a deep team or a 3-4 guy on a weaker team... the slugger is a true slugger 3-4-5 depending on team / opinions etc and a total waste leading off.

this is a toss-up for all intents and purposes. i'm not beating a horse about it, just answering

edit 2 - that's because of what slugging is. it includes things in improper weights. it says a double is 2x a single and a triple is 3x a single etc.. based on nothign but a whim. it's not accurate, even though it does correlate.

iso power is still bad, but better sign of true power. i can't seen the image, but it's like a .060-.090 spread on iso power if i recall my glancing look and lackluster math.

one guy is an ideal raker (with stealing ability, woot) and teh other is a good raker and an ideal leadoff hitting style. when it's a push i go for the true raker. they get paid more for a reason.

my edit: it's ~.050 power iso spread in favor of the guy on right, in spite of their slugging pcts

also i switched to ops->slugging on your edit2, my bad, but similar things would be said. walks are not bringing in runs. few can rake 150+ rbi, many can score 120+runs, especially with a 56hr guy behind you in the order. a clod could do it. (not recommending that, of course)

SLG is exactly accurate for what it is trying to do. That is to determine the percentage you get when you divide total bases by AB. I have no idea what you mean by "on a whim" etc. As far as your RBI argument goes, I have no idea whta you are talking about. Neither of those guys are leadoff hitters. They both belong somewhere between 2nd and 4th. I just don't see how a guy can hit .400, have a much larger OPS than the other guy, be the one that played on a playoff team and somehow it is still close.

[The Game]

The reason i would vote for Walker vs Derry.
A. Derry plays in a park similar to Coors (it is Coors just named different)
B. .421, while the highest AVG ever for a rookie is the 6th Highest (tie). 3rd highest NL.
C.Walker had more power, SB, 2B, plays a more defensive position and should win the GG.

If the majority think Derry and if the AI agrees with that then i would not override it. i actually think the AI will choose Waters instead.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

SLG is exactly accurate for what it is trying to do. That is to determine the percentage you get when you divide total bases by AB. I have no idea what you mean by "on a whim" etc. As far as your RBI argument goes, I have no idea whta you are talking about. Neither of those guys are leadoff hitters. They both belong somewhere between 2nd and 4th. I just don't see how a guy can hit .400, have a much larger OPS than the other guy, be the one that played on a playoff team and somehow it is still close.

i'd love to see the math used to determine these weights, it's clearly some advanced algorythm that takes everythign important into account and spits tehm out:

single : 1
double: 2
triple: 3
hr: 4

i mean it boggles my mind how they came out so perfectly weighted.



really? it's a poorly formulated stat that has some correlation. it's not worthelss, it's worthelss to use in certain ways though.

if not weighted properly it is incredibly whimsical and/or naive formulation to think that's the correct values to use. my point is slugging pct values things out of proportion, therefore using its results in such a direct way between these 2 players isn't proving anything.

slug a > slug b is not logical reason to belive a is better slugger than b. if the gap is huge, i'd say it's obvious for reasons beyond slugging pct and not because of it.

i don't have emotional attachment to a certain # like .400. don't care if he hit 350 or 400 - it's not many hits different over 162 games. obviously in that league .400 is nothing like RL, so that perception cannot be applied that it's somethign special or difficult to reach in that league. more info is needed for that to be a relevant argument. BA is not that important. it needs to be there, but it's not going to tell you who is 'better' on it's own and a far cry from doing so.

i do like the glitz of having the best BA in the league, but it's not that important. you can lead the league in runs without the best BA consistently and that should be enough to understand why.

OPS - worse than slugging! let's take 2 stats that are poorly formulated like Slugging and OBP and just arbitrarily mash them together. obp already includes singles, mind you. yeah! that's a really good stat there to use in an absolute way too.

so now the weights are:
bb:1
all hits: 1 (then doubled up below for fun)
single:1
doubles:2
triples:3
hr:4

denominator changes compared to slugging but should be obvious.

yeah, i can see why they made this change.. so obvious now that i look at it. much more rational and logical now. doubling up on singles really does it for me. i bet they brought in some quantum computing to poop out those #'s.

[Matt Arnold]

OPS, for such a "simple" stat, actually does a decent job at describing offensive value. Ignoring the fact for the moment that they use different denominators, they essentially weight things as 1 bb : 2 si : 3 do : 4 tr : 5 hr, which is actually not that far off from wOBA which has weights around .7 : .9 : 1.2 : 1.5 : 2 (varies year to year)

But in the above, given that .421 isn't that special in that universe, that changes things a little. But Derry still wins in wOBA. Basically, it's roughly 50 singles + 40 BB vs 15 HR + 30 SB + CF defense. I can see an argument either way. Waters is tempting too - 19 BB in 300 IP! If only his K rate was up closer to one an inning...

[The Game]

More stats for Derry

[The Game]

more stats on Walker.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i'd love to see the math used to determine these weights, it's clearly some advanced algorythm that takes everythign important into account and spits tehm out:

single : 1
double: 2
triple: 3
hr: 4

i mean it boggles my mind how they came out so perfectly weighted.



really? it's a poorly formulated stat that has some correlation. it's not worthelss, it's worthelss to use in certain ways though.

if not weighted properly it is incredibly whimsical and/or naive formulation to think that's the correct values to use. my point is slugging pct values things out of proportion, therefore using its results in such a direct way between these 2 players isn't proving anything.

slug a > slug b is not logical reason to belive a is better slugger than b. if the gap is huge, i'd say it's obvious for reasons beyond slugging pct and not because of it.

i don't have emotional attachment to a certain # like .400. don't care if he hit 350 or 400 - it's not many hits different over 162 games. obviously in that league .400 is nothing like RL, so that perception cannot be applied that it's somethign special or difficult to reach in that league. more info is needed for that to be a relevant argument. BA is not that important. it needs to be there, but it's not going to tell you who is 'better' on it's own and a far cry from doing so.

i do like the glitz of having the best BA in the league, but it's not that important. you can lead the league in runs without the best BA consistently and that should be enough to understand why.

OPS - worse than slugging! let's take 2 stats that are poorly formulated like Slugging and OBP and just arbitrarily mash them together. obp already includes singles, mind you. yeah! that's a really good stat there to use in an absolute way too.

so now the weights are:
bb:1
all hits: 1 (then doubled up below for fun)
single:1
doubles:2
triples:3
hr:4

denominator changes compared to slugging but should be obvious.

yeah, i can see why they made this change.. so obvious now that i look at it. much more rational and logical now. doubling up on singles really does it for me. i bet they brought in some quantum computing to poop out those #'s.

I have no idea what your argument is. It sounds like you wish slugging percentage was actually a measurement of something else.

[Eugene Church]

I never let the AI choose the Award Winners or All-Stars... or the Hall of Fame... just don't trust it.

I manually do it myself... and give some weight to where the player's team is in the standings... but just minor weight.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

I never let the AI choose the Award Winners or All-Stars... or the Hall of Fame... just don't trust it.

I manually do it myself... and give some weight to where the player's team is in the standings... but just minor weight.

I ask AI then make changes. i hardly ever change GG award winners anymore.