Any new Saber stats in OOTP 06?

[Doughnuts?]

Originally Posted by bababui

Doughnuts? who the hell is that in your avatar?

Former governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Now that statement is not too far from the truth - if you removed the "lot" from it and just wrote "it's less highly regarded these days than it used to be and other people have even improved on it" I doubt if anyone would argue with you.

But it is still highly regarded.

It is highly regarded by some (I definitely would not say by most) in the performance analysis community, but there are a lot of knocks against it that make me wary of using it for serious performance analysis beyond the very abstract level.

I'd stick to EQA for offensive performance, and any of the PbP methods for defense as my personal preference.

[fauteuil7]

Originally Posted by Doughnuts?

Former governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean.

He's part of the "OOTP and You - Perfect Together" ad campaign, right?

[Luis_Rivera]

Here's an excellent breakdown on Win Shares' flaws by Tangotiger:

http://www.tangotiger.net/#Winshares

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Doughnuts?

Former governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean.

I thought it was the guy from the Sopranos who has a thing for firemen.

[tysok]

"The drawbacks

Where are the loss shares? Assume that the league average is 80 RC / 400 outs. You have Larry Walker getting 90 RC in 300 outs, and you have Albert Belle getting 100 RC in 400 outs. According to James' win shares, Walker would get 90 - 30 = 60 marginal runs, which is 6 wins created, and 18 win shares. (He has a 3 shares to win converter). Belle would get 100 - 40 = 60 ..... 18 win shares, the same.

Now, if we introduce a 150% of league average baseline, and the difference from that is the loss created, we can get loss shares. If we add in loss shares, Walker would get 90 - 90 = 0, and Belle would get 120 - 100 = 20 .... 6 loss shares.

So, you have Walker with 18-0 and Belle at 18-6. Who's better? "

I'm not blasting this, trying to understand what he's trying to say... it doesn't seem to make sense.
The second set of numbers seem to come from nowhere. 90-90=0 ... can't argue with the math, but what are those numbers? He said establish a 150% baseline and the difference is losses....... that should be 120 (150% of the league average) - 90 (actual) = 30.
Belle's says 120-100=20... which makes sense... It seems it would be 120 (150% of league average) - 100 (actual) = 20.

So... Belle's checks out... but where's the 90 coming from for Walker? Of course, this ignores that they made outs. 150% baseline on outs would be 600 - 300 (for Walker) = 300, 10% = 30... and 600 - 400 (for Belle) = 200, 10% = 20. But I can't get those numbers to fit into the equations in any way, the 30 for Walker doesn't bring him to 90 no matter how I add, and 20 for Belle throws off the original.
I just can't get the numbers to check out no matter what I do. Maybe he's just leaving out some important idea for the sake of space...

[Russ]

It's still based off of the 80RC/400outs avg. If you subtract 30 from Walker's 90 to find marginal runs [80/400=x/300] is 60 and you take 50% for replacement level runs (30), when you figure loss shares you multiply 60 by 150% to come up with 90. Same with Bell, but the his marginal runs becomes 80, hence 40 and 120. I think you forgot to take Walker's outs made into account.

[bababui]

Originally Posted by Russ

I thought it was the guy from the Sopranos who has a thing for firemen.

"

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Russ

It's still based off of the 80RC/400outs avg. If you subtract 30 from Walker's 90 to find marginal runs [80/400=x/300] is 60 and you take 50% for replacement level runs (30), when you figure loss shares you multiply 60 by 150% to come up with 90. Same with Bell, but the his marginal runs becomes 80, hence 40 and 120. I think you forgot to take Walker's outs made into account.

Bah... I was attacking it from the wrong side. Something I constantly do when comparing numbers such as this. 80/400=x/300 and 80/400=x/400. Draws me to looking at a wrong comparison since it's so simple on the one end, 80/400=x/400, I move to make it that simple on the other. No matter how many times I screw that up (or how big a knot is on my head from slapping my hand against my forehead) I never remember it the next time.

[DaMook]

Originally Posted by nestajones

Completely ignorant statement.

Maybe to you dude but claiming my statement is ignorant just shows ignorance on your part. If you understood anything about stats then you would understand why Errors and RBIs tell you almost nothing about a players value.

[Malleus Dei]

RBI's are very dependent on factors outside the batter's control, and errors have always struck me as pretty much just a joke stat. An error is a purely subjective decision by someone who should not have the power to make such a decision, one which can penalize someone for getting to a ball he can't quite field, but which won't penalize another player who can't get to the same ball or won't even try.

An awesome CF desperately runs down a fly ball andjust almost catches it - error.

A slower CF runs after but doesn't come close to the ball - no error.

A dogging CF let's the ball bounce around and picks it up and throws it to the infield - no error.

Bah.

[nestajones]

Originally Posted by DaMook

Maybe to you dude but claiming my statement is ignorant just shows ignorance on your part. If you understood anything about stats then you would understand why Errors and RBIs tell you almost nothing about a players value.

I do understand baseball stats, thanks for your concern though.

They also tell me almost nothing about a player's looks, so what. "Value" is not always what is being measured. Though in fact, RBI often do tell more about value than, say, OBP. Or do you think the fact that the Runs Created which James uses for Win Shares includes a calculation of BA with RISP doesn't matter?

Games are won by scoring more runs than the opposition. Every run counts. I realize players in better spots or on better teams will get more RBI. That doesn't make their contributions "useless," in any way. It just means they need to be taken into context and understood for what they are, like every other ****in stat.

[cdheer]

Originally Posted by nestajones

I realize players in better spots or on better teams will get more RBI. That doesn't make their contributions "useless," in any way.

No, but it does mean that using RBI as an objective measurement criterion is not going to produce consistent results.

--chris

[DaMook]

Originally Posted by nestajones

I do understand baseball stats, thanks for your concern though.

They also tell me almost nothing about a player's looks, so what. "Value" is not always what is being measured. Though in fact, RBI often do tell more about value than, say, OBP. Or do you think the fact that the Runs Created which James uses for Win Shares includes a calculation of BA with RISP doesn't matter?

Games are won by scoring more runs than the opposition. Every run counts. I realize players in better spots or on better teams will get more RBI. That doesn't make their contributions "useless," in any way. It just means they need to be taken into context and understood for what they are, like every other ****in stat.

You can not come to an accurate conclusion about a players value or what a player has contributed using RBIs. RBIs are an inferior measure of production, because they are more closely tied to lineup context than hitting skill.