How would you weight factors in evaluating a player?

uabfan · 09-24-2017, 04:36 AM

I'm, admittedly, a stathead and so I have spreadsheets to manage my team in a large online fictional league. For a handy player rating, I have to weight factors (weights adding up to 100% obviously). This is what I have...what would you choose?

Hittting
CON: 23%
GAP: 20%
POW: 22%
EYE: 16%
AVOID K: 19%

This gives me what I call a HIT rating which I use to evaluate a position player overall:
Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12%
HIT rating: 60%
Speed/Steal/Baserunning: 8%
Position Defense Rating: 20%

For pitchers:
Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12%
Stuff/Mov/Con: 49%
Vel: 10%
Avg Pitch Rating: 29%

Cobby · 10-06-2017, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uabfan

I'm, admittedly, a stathead and so I have spreadsheets to manage my team in a large online fictional league. For a handy player rating, I have to weight factors (weights adding up to 100% obviously). This is what I have...what would you choose?

Hittting
CON: 23%
GAP: 20%
POW: 22%
EYE: 16%
AVOID K: 19%

This gives me what I call a HIT rating which I use to evaluate a position player overall:
Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12%
HIT rating: 60%
Speed/Steal/Baserunning: 8%
Position Defense Rating: 20%

For pitchers:
Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12%
Stuff/Mov/Con: 49%
Vel: 10%
Avg Pitch Rating: 29%

For hitters, I think Contact is most important, followed by Eye and Power about equally, then Gap. I ignore avoid K's completely.

Here's how I think of it. You're trying to find out the probabilities of each possible outcome. So you're dividing a line into segments, with the length of each segment proportional to the probability of the various outcomes. The first line is determined by the EYE rating. That divides the line into walks and everything else. (Everything else is pretty much At-Bats, ignoring relatively rare things like HBP). The next line added is Hits vs Outs. This divides the AB segment and the position is determined by the Contact rating. (in other words Contact = Batting Average). The next two lines divide the Hit segment into doubles (Gap) and home runs (Power). The Avoid K's rating divides the OUTs segment into strikeouts vs outs on balls in play. Then the doubles get divided into doubles vs triples by the Speed rating.

Now what you can do (by playing around in the editor) is come up with some measure of batting ability (I use wOBA) and figure out what the value of the various ratings are and how they affect that measure. Strikeouts are not part of the wOBA formula, which is why I ignore the "Avoid K's" rating. This is certainly arguable. For a K, an out is an out. For a ball in play - sometimes an out is an out (like when no one is one base, for example or when there are two outs already) but sometimes it's a productive out moving a runner, and sometimes it's two outs - hitting into a double play. Whether one offsets the other is a matter for debate. I think the sabermetrics folks have generally concluded that they do. An out is an out.

You will note if you look under the hood that the contact rating is not entered directly but is calculated from a BABIP rating and the Avoid K's rating (and I think the Power rating figures in sometimes). But from what we see on the outside, Contact is just batting average and avoid K's just adjusts the proportions of K's vs other kinds of outs. I think it can safely be ignored.

As to how to figure in fielding - I think the only way is empirically. You'd have to run some simulations and try to figure out how position ratings correlated with some run-based fielding measure (zone rating, I guess). I took a stab at it a while back, but it was a little sloppy. I think it's pretty important and especially if your team is strapped for cash. A defensive run saved is worth just as much as an offensive run gained, but is usually much cheaper....

For pitchers, I go through a similar process, but it's a lot more complicated. Basically Stuff = strikeouts, Movement = Home Runs allowed and Control = Walks. These are the three inputs (along with IP) into the FIP formula. So if you use that as your pitching measure, you can see how each of those effect FIP (playing in the editor again). I did a quick pass and came up with about 41% movement, 38% stuff and 21% control. I'd ignore velocity and average pitch rating since they are already taken into account with Stuff. Except - the number of quality pitches and stamina are important as to whether a pitcher can be an effective starter. This is where it gets complicated. Starters are considerably more valuable than relievers, so some evaluation along those lines ought to be built into the formula.

Personality factors like WE and INT probably affect development to some extent and you might build it into your formula for young players. But, I don't think I'd have the proportions as high as you have them, and I don't think I'd use them at all for already developed players. I would be on the lookout for disruptive players though to avoid those and leadership is always a plus for team chemistry so I might build a little tweak in for that.

I would also include injury-proneness. This makes a real difference - especially when evaluating veterans. I often see players with great ratings that are nearly useless because they're constantly on the DL...

Anyway. My 2 cents. Cha-ching!

NoOne · 10-06-2017, 01:07 PM

** "Con" = BABIP, i assume?... otherwise, Contact is an aggregate rating of babip, avoid k and power... so by using Contact and 2/3rds (not of scale, but of parts) of it a second time in the same "pie" is double dipping... if you do it that way you must visualize a portion of any percentage you apply to contact also being applied to power and avoid k's because they're part of "contact" rating. by weighting contact, you weight all three no matter the intention.

also, this will 100% depend on the statistical environment outlined by LTM/LT -- and not neccessarily what the literal #'s say in the settings, but rather what they amount to in practice over the long term, and assuming they stay at least somewhat consistent while you use this self-made "Hit Rating"...

ie they aren't always callibrated for League Totals (long-term average nothing like the totals in many cases out there)

So, what you are doing is/can be a very useful thing, if you don't rely solely on it to make a decision, and i wouldn't start by picking %'s out of a proverbial hat. i'd look at how ootp calculates Contact from babip/avoid k's and power, then compare the estimates from editor to actual results and make an informed decisions on initial %'s to use (this is related to LTM/LT and callibration etc). i'd also look at how the estimated BB-rate in the profile editor differs from actual results in your league. (same for gap et al.).

if like me, you naturally do this from experience of playing. that beign said, an equation provides more consistency and less human errors of eye-balling it. play the same environment long enough and you know what makes or breaks players eventually. accepting a normal range of results is a big part of recognizing that (volatility!).

another tidbit:
relative to this game gap has little to do with contact. it's a mostly mutually exclusive force - it is essentially important 'after' contact is made - more a factor to help determine where it went, how fast etc. it's better to understand it on its own merits. i get what you are trying to do... but it will inevitably end up with the same inherent problems as Overall/Potential or any other aggregate "rating" or stat. (hence my suggestion above not to use it exclusively or as "god's word")

opinions:

probably weighing work ethic/intelligence way too much -- unless only referencing an undeveloped draftee or newly created amatuer player however they ar emade in your league.

once they are developed, it really doesn't matter much -- aging / suspensions still come into play. (read manual about intelligence, has other effects than development - specifics not important but the idea is - how does it apply to the player's ability? if developed, not much at all)

work ethic > intelligence once developed, i would guess. more important to avoiding aging? guessing. but, still only applicable to players in a certain age range that you should be avoiding and not courting frequently.

speed/stealing etc will be impacted significantly by your leagueg totals... ~2500 steal attempts a year vs 4500? of course with no baseline you can't do much with just that info but guess. google how it is mathemetically important to "today's game" and just as you try to translate above for LTM/LT differences, do the same with that data.

using in game data when possible is best, when you can't, you can roughly be safe assuming ootp is somewhere near the RL baseline relative to modern mlb and modern-day ootp defualt settings.

again with the pitchers similar issues... stuff/con/move contains elements of velocity already, so there's double dipping going on again.

this is why ops is such a ******'s stat. first, walks are counted twice. second, singels vs 2b vs 3b vs hr are not properly weighted in slugging. and then arbitrarily adding to ******ed statistics together to get the ultimate ******ed stat is mind-boggling to me. (what you are doing is different and more sophisticated, just avoid the same pitfalls as the stupidity of ops and you will be fine.)

NotMuchTime · 10-07-2017, 01:50 PM

I don't there is a single formula for evaluating players. I have a wizard at SS that is primarily a singles hitter. He's a left handed hitter, steals bases and is not easy to strike out. My manager bats him second, which is exactly what I would do.

I also have a bench bat LF/RF/1B that doesn't hit for average, never doubles, but hits for power and walks a lot. He tears lefties up and finds himself starting quite often against them. While his fielding is suspect, he has a cannon for an arm. I don't normally like these guys, but he is also hard to strike out and doesn't hit a lot of ground balls. If he hit too many ground balls and/or struck out more, I'd dump him like a bag of trash.

NoOne says OPS is a ******s stat and I'm here to say that I agree with him. Almost all stats are useful in one way or another. OPS takes two numbers that mean something and adds them together to create a meaningless number.

Dyzalot · 10-07-2017, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMuchTime

NoOne says OPS is a ******s stat and I'm here to say that I agree with him. Almost all stats are useful in one way or another. OPS takes two numbers that mean something and adds them together to create a meaningless number.

I wonder which stat correlates to wins more precisely, on base percentage, slugging percentage or on base plus slugging percentage.

sc_superstar · 10-08-2017, 09:31 AM

If you have a guy with high OBP, followed by a guy with high SLG, win expectancy probably goes up a lot they dont need to do both.

sc_superstar · 10-08-2017, 09:32 AM

Also when I evaluate players, i tend to look at their stats (or ratings/pot for prospects) comparatively to the best players at their position.

Dyzalot · 10-08-2017, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc_superstar

If you have a guy with high OBP, followed by a guy with high SLG, win expectancy probably goes up a lot they dont need to do both.

Compared to what? What's the baseline that it is going up from?

NoOne · 10-08-2017, 05:21 PM

i think what he's hitting on is that each spot in the order is not the same. you'd want a different algorithm for lead-off, maybe 2nd/3rd, then 4/5 etc... all spots do not see the same rbi opportunities as just one more example of why. the distribution really does adhere to some basic trends. your best rakers *should be 3-4-5 in the order -- and that isn't an opinion. it's based on how often they will have runners on base when AB. 3rd roughly equals 5th, and 4th gets the most opportunities. therefore the best rbi producer should be 4th in almost all situations. since 3rd and 5th have different attributes, you put the more rounded guy 3rd most likely due to what it will "see"

a singles machine batting lead-off minimizes the drawback of no power.

a singles maching batting 4th with a slugger behind them is not necessarily the best configuration, imo... but the concept isn't far off.

it's also important to remember that the range of Runs scored relative to different lineup possibilities is not as large as you think. i don't recall the exact numbers i read but it's either of these two...

from ~average to "best" it's ~16 runs different for an average team (larger for a better team, obviously.)
OR
from ~worst to "best" it's ~16runs... whichever... 16-++? runs over 162 games "can" make a difference in the right situation and it's important to at least try to assemble a logical order, but it's not too big of a deal. (e.g. injury plagued season makes it more important to be efficient with a playoff team)

why?
first, no one uses the "worst" lineup possible, so you can reasonable assume it will never be the worst case scenario as far as your lineup vs "best". just a modicum of common sense and i bet most people are within ~5runs, regardless of the order they choose at worst based on the research i read on lineups -> RS etc. while these #'s are precisely calculated, have more realistic expectations of accuracy... add a little give/take etc.

(all based on long-term average... any short term situation could benefit from even the "worst" lineup possible under extremely rare circumstances. paying attention to the short-term too much is how you get fooled by randomness!)

Dyzalot · 10-08-2017, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

i think what he's hitting on is that each spot in the order is not the same. you'd want a different algorithm for lead-off, maybe 2nd/3rd, then 4/5 etc... all spots do not see the same rbi opportunities as just one more example of why. the distribution really does adhere to some basic trends. your best rakers *should be 3-4-5 in the order -- and that isn't an opinion. it's based on how often they will have runners on base when AB. 3=5, and 4th gets the most opportunities. therefore the best rbi producer should be 4th in almost all situations.

a singles machine batting lead-off minimizes the drawback of no power.

a singles maching batting 4th with a slugger behind them is not necessarily the best configuration, imo... but the concept isn't far off.

it's also important to remember that the range of Runs scored relative to different lineup possibilities is not as large as you think. i don't recall the exact numbers i read but it's either of these two...

from ~average to "best" it's ~16 runs different for an average team (larger for a better team, obviously.)
OR
from ~worst to "best" it's ~16runs... whichever... 16-++? runs over 162 games "can" make a difference in the right situation and it's important to at least try to assemble a logical order, but it's not too big of a deal. (e.g. injury plagued season makes it more important to be efficient with a playoff team)

why?
first, no one uses the "worst" lineup possible, so you can reasonable assume it will never be the worst case scenario as far as your lineup vs "best". just a modicum of common sense and i bet most people are within ~5runs, regardless of the order they choose at worst based on the research i read on lineups -> RS etc. while these #'s are precisely calculated, have more realistic expectations of accuracy... add a little give/take etc.

(all based on long-term average... any short term situation could benefit from even the "worst" lineup possible under extremely rare circumstances. paying attention to the short-term too much is how you get fooled by randomness!)

Doesn't the 2nd half of your post diminish the point you were trying to make in the 1st half? I mean if lineup only makes a 16 run change over a season, that's negligible. If lineup makeup is negligible then so is the idea of putting a high slugging guy in the middle of the order over a high OBP guy.

ThePretender · 10-08-2017, 06:33 PM

I don't know if I agree with that. Your #3 hitter comes to the plate the most times with nobody on so he's not necessary in an ideal run producer position. He's gotta drive himself in, essentially. Different skill set for #5 vs #3. Id probably have more power third and more balance fifth. And I'd rather have my better hitter second than third because he ends up with more high leverage at bats than the #3 hitter.

2/4/1 would be my best bats. 4 more power, 2 more balanced, one good obp and least power of the trio.

Dyzalot · 10-08-2017, 07:54 PM

Wouldn't your leadoff hitter come to the plate the most times with no one on? Seems counterintuitive to claim that the guy hitting behind the two best OBP guys comes up the most with the bases empty.

ThePretender · 10-08-2017, 08:18 PM

Sorry I meant to say 2 out and nobody on for number 3 hitter. Number 3 hitter has fewer high leverage abs than 2/4, which is why you want power in third spot and balance in fifth spot. Your number 5 hitter is more important than your number 3 hitter, believe it or not.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...your-lineup-by explains it well.

Dyzalot · 10-08-2017, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Sorry I meant to say 2 out and nobody on for number 3 hitter. Number 3 hitter has fewer high leverage abs than 2/4, which is why you want power in third spot and balance in fifth spot. Your number 5 hitter is more important than your number 3 hitter, believe it or not.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...your-lineup-by explains it well.

Ok, that makes much more sense.

NoOne · 10-09-2017, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePretender

I don't know if I agree with that. Your #3 hitter comes to the plate the most times with nobody on so he's not necessary in an ideal run producer position. He's gotta drive himself in, essentially. Different skill set for #5 vs #3. Id probably have more power third and more balance fifth. And I'd rather have my better hitter second than third because he ends up with more high leverage at bats than the #3 hitter.

2/4/1 would be my best bats. 4 more power, 2 more balanced, one good obp and least power of the trio.

it wasn't my intuition.. google for the math. it's nothign that can be aggreed or disagreed with, it is reality. yeah, he sees the most # of ab with no one on but also sees X% more AB than #5.

i don't know what constitutes a high leverage ab. i care bout is the probabilities (or "amounts" where common sense dictates is more important that "rate") of what all of each spot will see over 162g.

rbi-oppurtinites. not average rbi per slot in order -- big difference too.

alll i said was it's equal rbi opp's, and i mentioned that you need a more well-rounded player for 3 vs 5 shortly after. (math/others' research, not feelings on the # of rbi-opps) FWIW in ootp 5th gets more rbi-opportunities than 3rd... i have used numberous players in both spots and it's a distinctly higher average every time -- eyeballs can tell it's so obvious. RL reseach won't match ootp exactly - another thing to consider

well-rounded meant if he can take a walk 'better' or run 'better' that's the better choice for 3 vs 5. whatever makes sense. i wasn't about to outline all possibilities.. figured common sense should be simple enough from that point on.

nothing i said is based on feelings, unless noted as such. all about facts...

what do they see at that point in the lineup?
how is that different than other spots in lineup?
what should go where based on what you have and what the facts tell you about each spot in the lineup in order to create the most efficiency?

i never tried to paint whole picture or give too many specifics - if not an example. rest is upto the individual to research and learn. i have not researched and leaerned much -- not being paid to do so

just a video game. doesn't mean that the questions are not terribly obvious to deduce.

NoOne · 10-09-2017, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Doesn't the 2nd half of your post diminish the point you were trying to make in the 1st half? I mean if lineup only makes a 16 run change over a season, that's negligible. If lineup makeup is negligible then so is the idea of putting a high slugging guy in the middle of the order over a high OBP guy.

well... it's still somethign you shouldn't neglect.

and yes, i am pointing out it's not nearly as big of a deal as people fret over it.

do you purposely ignore such an easy and non-effort required thing to set just because it's small potatoes? it is an effect and incredibly easy to influence to your advantage.. the question is why they heck would you not want to do so... competitive fire should be enough motivation.

i squeeze as much as possible out of evertyhing possible -- within reason. if this took say 2hours to figure out, i'd probably skip it, yes.

NoOne · 10-09-2017, 12:10 PM

this wasn't the same reserach but looks similar enough

http://www.smartfantasybaseball.com/...bi-production/

this shows 3rd getting more rbi than 5th, but it is not normalizing for the talent difference you see at 3rd vs 5th in the MLB.

#'s used in statistical research at the top of the lineup are not the same animal as 9th. crappy players play at the bottom of the lineup. they are not comparable in many ways to the 1-4 guys on most teams -- better teams go deeper, worse teams shorter obviously, but on average mor than half a team is pretty subpar quality relative to a "Good team"

remember, average sucks. whether in school or sport or life in general.

If the researc doesn't say they account for the disparity in quality of players at various spots in teh lineup, it's missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle.. their data will be skewed and blurred.

--------------------

more good stuff, didn't read throgh just browsed:

http://razzball.com/lineup-position-impact-on-runs-rbi/

-- in this one, above, the way he looked at hr is scary... of course where you are at in lineup does not effect hr-rate, lol... stupid is everywhere. hr's are mostly accidents that happen. proportion of situations might influence that.. but players are mostly selfish too... how many sacrifice for the team? (not speaking of a bunt, but it might be a bunt in some situations, lol)

Fantasy baseball research is great stuff -- just remember it's relative to a very specific environemnt and .. word for how they do things... (SOP) standard operating procedures - whether rational or not.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...CFUw6wNz7DyQnr

-- ha! that's a cool pdf thesis i read... some good stuff in there if i recall. been a few years now. maybe less.. i've linked it before in a thread.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs...nities&f=false

-- this one mentions the report i am trying tofind and link... The Hidden Game of Baseball -- thorn and palmer

ThePretender · 10-09-2017, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

it wasn't my intuition.. google for the math. it's nothign that can be aggreed or disagreed with, it is reality. yeah, he sees the most # of ab with no one on but also sees X% more AB than #5.

The math says that's not true though. I've googled it and have no idea where you got this information. The article I linked before even says the # 4/5 hitter comes to the plate with more guys on base than the #3 hitter. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:

i don't know what constitutes a high leverage ab. i care bout is the probabilities (or "amounts" where common sense dictates is more important that "rate") of what all of each spot will see over 162g.

Right, and the 4/5 hitter will see more AB with guys on base.

https://cornerthree.net/2014/07/29/t...ir-teams-wins/

That's another site that backs up what I'm saying. Lineup spots by importance "#1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9”

And further down it says:

Quote:

3rd: One of your middle-of-the-pack hitters – not only is this slot fifth out of nine in terms of most important OBP, but it’s second only to the leadoff spot in terms of plate appearances with the bases empty. The spot conventionally reserved for one of your best RBI guys will have few chances to actually get them!

So I don't know why you keep saying you get RBI opportunities here - you don't. So why waste one of your top bats in the #3 spot?

Quote:

alll i said was it's equal rbi opp's, and i mentioned that you need a more well-rounded player for 3 vs 5 shortly after. (math/others' research, not feelings on the # of rbi-opps) FWIW in ootp 5th gets more rbi-opportunities than 3rd... i have used numberous players in both spots and it's a distinctly higher average every time -- eyeballs can tell it's so obvious. RL reseach won't match ootp exactly - another thing to consider

I literally have no idea why you're arguing this because it's exactly what I said. You said in an earlier post 3=5, to which I very clearly am arguing that's not the case, and 5 gets more RBI opportunities which is why the better bat goes there.

Quote:

well-rounded meant if he can take a walk 'better' or run 'better' that's the better choice for 3 vs 5. whatever makes sense. i wasn't about to outline all possibilities.. figured common sense should be simple enough from that point on.

Except, that's wrong, you have it backwards. You said:

Quote:

you put the more rounded guy 3rd most likely due to what it will "see"

So you said the more rounded guy goes third. That's wrong, based on the facts. Every legitimate source, based on math, says the #3 guy should be a better power hitter, and the #5 guy should be more balanced (since he'll have more RBI opportunities).

This is from the link I used in the previous post.

Quote:

The Book says the #5 guy can provide more value than the #3 guy with singles, doubles, triples, and walks, and avoiding outs, although the #3 guy holds an advantage with homeruns. After positions #1, #2, and #4 are filled, put your next best hitter here, unless he lives and dies with the long ball.

So yeah, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from. Cause there's nothing to support 3 hitter being the better or more rounded guy than #5 hitter.

Quote:

nothing i said is based on feelings, unless noted as such. all about facts...

I'd check those facts, cause they don't seem accurate at all.

NoOne · 10-09-2017, 12:20 PM

ootp vs RL -- that's why oyu are confused... you missed that i was speaking of RL data when i said 3=5 in rbi opportunites... in ootp it does not work that way, empirically.

well in ootp i guarnatee in practice teh most rbi will be produced at 4th, followed by 5th, followed by 3rd. not referencing ant other aspect.. whether stealing or singles are better at 3rd or 5th is a mutually exclusive concept to look into... speaking only of rbi-opportunites... of course all aspects of each spot in order need to be considered... i already write books here, you want more?

when i make a superstar, they can get 150-200 at 4/5 pretty regularly... at 3rd they get 130-150 and rarely go higher.

talking 20-30 years of anecdotal experiecne at each position with very similar quality teams... not scientific but more than enough to be fairly confident.

you are using data, that's great... but your data is not accounting for very important factors like the talent different at each spot... the Thorn and Palmer book i linked above explains why 3rd actually gets roghly the same opportunities at 5th... they have more Average RBI/year becasue of other factors not because of more opportunities.

resutls tell alot, but they are flawed and limited... must accoutn for various factors to be more accurate.

once again, i am not trying to be specific about the exact differences between 3 vs 5 - (your quote from book is used to figure out which goes where as one example - if they did their research properly, of course) that's upto you to figure out... i merely presented the quesitons and concepts that are importnat... consider what the data is before using it as God's Word.

what's wrong with it? how does it not match up to what we are trying to deduce based on how things work in RL.

not unlike accounting for strength of schedule when looking at a specific team vs league-wide. you are lookin at data form the entire league.. that has inherent drawbacks that need to be accounted for.

Dyzalot · 10-09-2017, 06:27 PM

I think one of the things being ignored here is that RBIs aren't the "end all and be all" when it comes to production and scoring runs. If the number 3 guy sees less RBI opportunities than the number 5 guy then I'd want my lineup to have the guy with the .850 OPS with a .350 OBP batting 3rd & the .850 OPS with a .300 OBP guy batting 5th. Why would I want the better slugger 5th? So he hits after the higher OBP guy batting 3rd. If the idea was to put your best HR guy in the spot that sees the fewest RBI opportunities then you'd lead him off. But that makes no sense. Having a high OBP guy batting 3rd means he will score more runs from that spot than having a high power guy instead. All of that lineup tinkering can only affect 16 runs over a season on average though so the difference is negligible. Its a lot more important to have a lineup of high OPS guys than it is to make sure that the lineup you do have is optimized.

10-08-2017, 08:18 PM	#13
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331	Sorry I meant to say 2 out and nobody on for number 3 hitter. Number 3 hitter has fewer high leverage abs than 2/4, which is why you want power in third spot and balance in fifth spot. Your number 5 hitter is more important than your number 3 hitter, believe it or not. https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...your-lineup-by explains it well. Last edited by ThePretender; 10-08-2017 at 08:20 PM.

10-09-2017, 12:10 PM	#17
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	this wasn't the same reserach but looks similar enough http://www.smartfantasybaseball.com/...bi-production/ this shows 3rd getting more rbi than 5th, but it is not normalizing for the talent difference you see at 3rd vs 5th in the MLB. #'s used in statistical research at the top of the lineup are not the same animal as 9th. crappy players play at the bottom of the lineup. they are not comparable in many ways to the 1-4 guys on most teams -- better teams go deeper, worse teams shorter obviously, but on average mor than half a team is pretty subpar quality relative to a "Good team" remember, average sucks. whether in school or sport or life in general. If the researc doesn't say they account for the disparity in quality of players at various spots in teh lineup, it's missing a HUGE piece of the puzzle.. their data will be skewed and blurred. -------------------- more good stuff, didn't read throgh just browsed: http://razzball.com/lineup-position-impact-on-runs-rbi/ -- in this one, above, the way he looked at hr is scary... of course where you are at in lineup does not effect hr-rate, lol... stupid is everywhere. hr's are mostly accidents that happen. proportion of situations might influence that.. but players are mostly selfish too... how many sacrifice for the team? (not speaking of a bunt, but it might be a bunt in some situations, lol) Fantasy baseball research is great stuff -- just remember it's relative to a very specific environemnt and .. word for how they do things... (SOP) standard operating procedures - whether rational or not. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...CFUw6wNz7DyQnr -- ha! that's a cool pdf thesis i read... some good stuff in there if i recall. been a few years now. maybe less.. i've linked it before in a thread. https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs...nities&f=false -- this one mentions the report i am trying tofind and link... The Hidden Game of Baseball -- thorn and palmer Last edited by NoOne; 10-09-2017 at 12:17 PM.

10-09-2017, 12:20 PM	#19
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	ootp vs RL -- that's why oyu are confused... you missed that i was speaking of RL data when i said 3=5 in rbi opportunites... in ootp it does not work that way, empirically. well in ootp i guarnatee in practice teh most rbi will be produced at 4th, followed by 5th, followed by 3rd. not referencing ant other aspect.. whether stealing or singles are better at 3rd or 5th is a mutually exclusive concept to look into... speaking only of rbi-opportunites... of course all aspects of each spot in order need to be considered... i already write books here, you want more? when i make a superstar, they can get 150-200 at 4/5 pretty regularly... at 3rd they get 130-150 and rarely go higher. talking 20-30 years of anecdotal experiecne at each position with very similar quality teams... not scientific but more than enough to be fairly confident. you are using data, that's great... but your data is not accounting for very important factors like the talent different at each spot... the Thorn and Palmer book i linked above explains why 3rd actually gets roghly the same opportunities at 5th... they have more Average RBI/year becasue of other factors not because of more opportunities. resutls tell alot, but they are flawed and limited... must accoutn for various factors to be more accurate. once again, i am not trying to be specific about the exact differences between 3 vs 5 - (your quote from book is used to figure out which goes where as one example - if they did their research properly, of course) that's upto you to figure out... i merely presented the quesitons and concepts that are importnat... consider what the data is before using it as God's Word. what's wrong with it? how does it not match up to what we are trying to deduce based on how things work in RL. not unlike accounting for strength of schedule when looking at a specific team vs league-wide. you are lookin at data form the entire league.. that has inherent drawbacks that need to be accounted for. Last edited by NoOne; 10-09-2017 at 12:32 PM.

09-24-2017, 04:36 AM	#1
uabfan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 79	How would you weight factors in evaluating a player? I'm, admittedly, a stathead and so I have spreadsheets to manage my team in a large online fictional league. For a handy player rating, I have to weight factors (weights adding up to 100% obviously). This is what I have...what would you choose? Hittting CON: 23% GAP: 20% POW: 22% EYE: 16% AVOID K: 19% This gives me what I call a HIT rating which I use to evaluate a position player overall: Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12% HIT rating: 60% Speed/Steal/Baserunning: 8% Position Defense Rating: 20% For pitchers: Work Ethic + Intelligence: 12% Stuff/Mov/Con: 49% Vel: 10% Avg Pitch Rating: 29%

10-06-2017, 01:07 PM	#3
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	"Con" = BABIP, i assume?... otherwise, Contact is an aggregate rating of babip, avoid k and power... so by using Contact and 2/3rds (not of scale, but of parts) of it a second time in the same "pie" is double dipping... if you do it that way you must visualize a portion of any percentage you apply to contact also being applied to power and avoid k's because they're part of "contact" rating. by weighting contact, you weight all three no matter the intention. also, this will 100% depend on the statistical environment outlined by LTM/LT -- and not neccessarily what the literal #'s say in the settings, but rather what they amount to in practice over the long term, and assuming they stay at least somewhat consistent while you use this self-made "Hit Rating"... ie they aren't always callibrated for League Totals (long-term average nothing like the totals in many cases out there) So, what you are doing is/can be a very useful thing, if you don't rely solely on it to make a decision, and i wouldn't start by picking %'s out of a proverbial hat. i'd look at how ootp calculates Contact from babip/avoid k's and power, then compare the estimates from editor to actual results and make an informed decisions on initial %'s to use (this is related to LTM/LT and callibration etc). i'd also look at how the estimated BB-rate in the profile editor differs from actual results in your league. (same for gap et al.). if like me, you naturally do this from experience of playing. that beign said, an equation provides more consistency and less human errors of eye-balling it. play the same environment long enough and you know what makes or breaks players eventually. accepting a normal range of results is a big part of recognizing that (volatility!). another tidbit: relative to this game gap has little to do with contact. it's a mostly mutually exclusive force - it is essentially important 'after' contact is made - more a factor to help determine where it went, how fast etc. it's better to understand it on its own merits. i get what you are trying to do... but it will inevitably end up with the same inherent problems as Overall/Potential or any other aggregate "rating" or stat. (hence my suggestion above not to use it exclusively or as "god's word") opinions: probably weighing work ethic/intelligence way too much -- unless only referencing an undeveloped draftee or newly created amatuer player however they ar emade in your league. once they are developed, it really doesn't matter much -- aging / suspensions still come into play. (read manual about intelligence, has other effects than development - specifics not important but the idea is - how does it apply to the player's ability? if developed, not much at all) work ethic > intelligence once developed, i would guess. more important to avoiding aging? guessing. but, still only applicable to players in a certain age range that you should be avoiding and not courting frequently. speed/stealing etc will be impacted significantly by your leagueg totals... ~2500 steal attempts a year vs 4500? of course with no baseline you can't do much with just that info but guess. google how it is mathemetically important to "today's game" and just as you try to translate above for LTM/LT differences, do the same with that data. using in game data when possible is best, when you can't, you can roughly be safe assuming ootp is somewhere near the RL baseline relative to modern mlb and modern-day ootp defualt settings. again with the pitchers similar issues... stuff/con/move contains elements of velocity already, so there's double dipping going on again. this is why ops is such a **'s stat. first, walks are counted twice. second, singels vs 2b vs 3b vs hr are not properly weighted in slugging. and then arbitrarily adding to **ed statistics together to get the ultimate ***ed stat is mind-boggling to me. (what you are doing is different and more sophisticated, just avoid the same pitfalls as the stupidity of ops and you will be fine.) Last edited by NoOne; 10-06-2017 at 01:12 PM.*

10-07-2017, 01:50 PM	#4
NotMuchTime Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 150	I don't there is a single formula for evaluating players. I have a wizard at SS that is primarily a singles hitter. He's a left handed hitter, steals bases and is not easy to strike out. My manager bats him second, which is exactly what I would do. I also have a bench bat LF/RF/1B that doesn't hit for average, never doubles, but hits for power and walks a lot. He tears lefties up and finds himself starting quite often against them. While his fielding is suspect, he has a cannon for an arm. I don't normally like these guys, but he is also hard to strike out and doesn't hit a lot of ground balls. If he hit too many ground balls and/or struck out more, I'd dump him like a bag of trash. NoOne says OPS is a ******s stat and I'm here to say that I agree with him. Almost all stats are useful in one way or another. OPS takes two numbers that mean something and adds them together to create a meaningless number.

10-08-2017, 09:31 AM	#6
sc_superstar Major Leagues Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 407	If you have a guy with high OBP, followed by a guy with high SLG, win expectancy probably goes up a lot they dont need to do both.

10-08-2017, 09:32 AM	#7
sc_superstar Major Leagues Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 407	Also when I evaluate players, i tend to look at their stats (or ratings/pot for prospects) comparatively to the best players at their position.

10-08-2017, 05:21 PM	#9
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	i think what he's hitting on is that each spot in the order is not the same. you'd want a different algorithm for lead-off, maybe 2nd/3rd, then 4/5 etc... all spots do not see the same rbi opportunities as just one more example of why. the distribution really does adhere to some basic trends. your best rakers should be 3-4-5 in the order -- and that isn't an opinion. it's based on how often they will have runners on base when AB. 3rd roughly equals 5th, and 4th gets the most opportunities. therefore the best rbi producer should be 4th in almost all situations. since 3rd and 5th have different attributes, you put the more rounded guy 3rd most likely due to what it will "see" a singles machine batting lead-off minimizes the drawback of no power. a singles maching batting 4th with a slugger behind them is not necessarily the best configuration, imo... but the concept isn't far off. it's also important to remember that the range of Runs scored relative to different lineup possibilities is not as large as you think. i don't recall the exact numbers i read but it's either of these two... from ~average to "best" it's ~16 runs different for an average team (larger for a better team, obviously.) OR from ~worst to "best" it's ~16runs... whichever... 16-++? runs over 162 games "can" make a difference in the right situation and it's important to at least try to assemble a logical order, but it's not too big of a deal. (e.g. injury plagued season makes it more important to be efficient with a playoff team) why? first, no one uses the "worst" lineup possible, so you can reasonable assume it will never be the worst case scenario as far as your lineup vs "best". just a modicum of common sense and i bet most people are within ~5runs, regardless of the order they choose at worst based on the research i read on lineups -> RS etc. while these #'s are precisely calculated, have more realistic expectations of accuracy... add a little give/take etc. (all based on long-term average... any short term situation could benefit from even the "worst" lineup possible under extremely rare circumstances. paying attention to the short-term too much is how you get fooled by randomness!) Last edited by NoOne; 10-08-2017 at 05:26 PM.*

10-08-2017, 06:33 PM	#11
ThePretender All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,331	I don't know if I agree with that. Your #3 hitter comes to the plate the most times with nobody on so he's not necessary in an ideal run producer position. He's gotta drive himself in, essentially. Different skill set for #5 vs #3. Id probably have more power third and more balance fifth. And I'd rather have my better hitter second than third because he ends up with more high leverage at bats than the #3 hitter. 2/4/1 would be my best bats. 4 more power, 2 more balanced, one good obp and least power of the trio.

10-08-2017, 07:54 PM	#12
Dyzalot All Star Starter Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,740	Wouldn't your leadoff hitter come to the plate the most times with no one on? Seems counterintuitive to claim that the guy hitting behind the two best OBP guys comes up the most with the bases empty.

10-09-2017, 06:27 PM	#20
Dyzalot All Star Starter Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,740	I think one of the things being ignored here is that RBIs aren't the "end all and be all" when it comes to production and scoring runs. If the number 3 guy sees less RBI opportunities than the number 5 guy then I'd want my lineup to have the guy with the .850 OPS with a .350 OBP batting 3rd & the .850 OPS with a .300 OBP guy batting 5th. Why would I want the better slugger 5th? So he hits after the higher OBP guy batting 3rd. If the idea was to put your best HR guy in the spot that sees the fewest RBI opportunities then you'd lead him off. But that makes no sense. Having a high OBP guy batting 3rd means he will score more runs from that spot than having a high power guy instead. All of that lineup tinkering can only affect 16 runs over a season on average though so the difference is negligible. Its a lot more important to have a lineup of high OPS guys than it is to make sure that the lineup you do have is optimized.