Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants) - Page 23

IatricSB · 03-27-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Sandy's 1962-1966 an ERA of 1.95 with a league ERA of 3.29 (1.34 better)
Pedro's 1997-2002 and ERA of 2.20 with a league ERA of 4.64 (2.44 better)

Since it's not fair to just look at the 1.34 better vs 2.44 better, expressing their ERA as a pct of the league ERA you have:

Sandy: 0.592
Pedro: 0.474

I know DY would at this time point out that Sandy had less to work with given the lower league ERA, but I'm just tossing out the percentages as another reference.

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Since it's not fair to just look at the 1.34 better vs 2.44 better, expressing their ERA as a pct of the league ERA you have:

Sandy: 0.592
Pedro: 0.474

I know DY would at this time point out that Sandy had less to work with given the lower league ERA, but I'm just tossing out the percentages as another reference.

The point that seems to be made again and again is that Koufax, in a performance analysis, needs to be made a number of concessions to compete with Martinez. It's no shame to fall short in comparison to the most dominant pitcher MLB has ever produced.

BigCity · 03-27-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyJ

Koufax DERA

1962 - 3.32
1963 - 2.77
1964 - 2.64
1965 - 3.32
1966 - 2.71

WARP3

1962 - 5.4
1963 - 10.8
1964 - 8.7
1965 - 10.9
1966 - 12.1

Pedro DERA

1997 - 2.51
1998 - 2.90
1999 - 2.13
2000 - 1.71
2002 - 2.88

WARP3

1997 - 11.0
1998 - 9.8
1999 - 12.8
2000 - 13.8
2002 - 9.1

Not much doubt by looking at the adjusted statistics that Pedro was better in his peak years than Koufax was in his. Whether the numbers are trumped by "I was there, you weren't" fallacies is up to the reader.

Well, I'm not using the trump card to diminish yours, or anyone else's, opinions

It's just an added variable I have to work with which may or may not be valid. I can't argue the stats, since they tend to certainly lean toward PM, so I won't go there.

I am, however, curious as to DamnYankee's comment concerning the variances of the time periods and the related diminishing returns concept. There is, likely, a threashold that should be considered, regardless of how small it might appear at first glance.

Got me thinking... let's see if I can find some time to crunch some numbers....

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Since it's not fair to just look at the 1.34 better vs 2.44 better, expressing their ERA as a pct of the league ERA you have:

Sandy: 0.592
Pedro: 0.474

I know DY would at this time point out that Sandy had less to work with given the lower league ERA, but I'm just tossing out the percentages as another reference.

Actually, that's all that ERA+ is, I think.

ERA+ is merely LeagueERA/Pitcher'sERA

Your numbers are merely the inverse of that, Pitcher'sERA/LeagueERA.

It's the same stat, so yes, I have the same comment.

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

The point that seems to be made again and again is that Koufax, in a performance analysis, needs to be made a number of concessions to compete with Martinez. It's no shame to fall short in comparison to the most dominant pitcher MLB has ever produced.

Interesting that would you use the worst 'concessions.' There are no concession here, merley observations about statstics and time periods.

I could just as easily call ERA+ a concession, since after all, Sandy had a much lower ERA than Pedro. That would be absurd though. These are adjustment and observations, not concessions, with all that negatively entails.

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

Well, I'm not using the trump card to diminish yours, or anyone else's, opinions

It's just an added variable I have to work with which may or may not be valid. I can't argue the stats, since they tend to certainly lean toward PM, so I won't go there.

I am, however, curious as to DamnYankee's comment concerning the variances of the time periods and the related diminishing returns concept. There is, likely, a threashold that should be considered, regardless of how small it might appear at first glance.

Got me thinking... let's see if I can find some time to crunch some numbers....

A good place to start on this might be looking at the top 25 pitchers, lets say, in each given year, and finding their average distance from the mean ERA. Also, looking at the standard deviation of ERA every year. These could be insightful in this area. I don't really have the time nor expertise to do that though.

EDIT: Actually, doing this may only yeild the overall disparity of talent. I'm not sure how useful it would be to this inquiry. Can't hurt to look though, and they would definitely be interesting stats.

TonyJ · 03-27-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

Well, I'm not using the trump card to diminish yours, or anyone else's, opinions

It's just an added variable I have to work with which may or may not be valid. I can't argue the stats, since they tend to certainly lean toward PM, so I won't go there.

Yeah, that was not, shall we say, directed at you

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Interesting that would you use the worst 'concessions.' There are no concession here, merley observations about statstics and time periods.

When two good evaluation tools rate Pedro as being significantly better on peak value and career value, many points worthy of contention would have to be conceded to the Koufax supporters for them to be considered even equals.

I support neither. I'm just searching for a better truth.

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

When two good evaluation tools rate Pedro as being significantly better on peak value and career value, many points worthy of contention would have to be conceded to the Koufax supporters for them to be considered even equals.

I support neither. I'm just searching for a better truth.

A couple things:

1) I think we're all 'just searching for a better truth.' I know I am.
2) I think pretty much everyone will admit that Pedro's career has more value, since he just pitched more years. They have similar number of innings because of the difference in workload between now and then, but Pedro's career is certainly longer.
3) Two good evaluation tools rate him as better? That would be ERA+ and WARP1? Ok, well, ERA and Win Shares puts Koufax ahead (I believe). There are a ton of "good evaluation tools," but none are absolute, and almost none take in alot of factors, such as diminishing returns.

DH, I don't know if you consider yourself a sabermetrician or not, so let's assume for now you don't, and this is not addressed specifically to you. Same goes with Aadik. Sabermetricians can often be very arrogant, refusing to budge on anything because a complicated formula contains absolute truth. Thr reality though, is that no numbers caa perfectly reflect the physical reality of a baseball game. But sabermetrics over the past few years has started to build cyclical formulas, creating stats and criteria through which players should now be judged. They've fallen into their own hole, saying "baseball is supposed to be played this way, and it produces wins this way, so the quality of players should be judged through my formula which judges my way of conceptualizing a ballgame, and anyone who doesn't fit my formula isn't as good as those who do." But what if I don't buy in to WARP1? What if I think it's garbage? I'm not saying I do, but there are other viewpoints out there.

Ok, done with rant. Again, not aimed at anyone in particular, since I don't know any of you. I like sabermetrics and think it's added a ton to the game. But it isn't everything.

PS: DH, who the hell is that girl in your avatar. I've seen you post hundreds of times and it's always bothered me. Let me sleep peacefully tonight; who is it?

TonyJ · 03-27-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

I like sabermetrics and think it's added a ton to the game. But it isn't everything.

I would agree with that. However, it's better than "I was there and you weren't so STFU n00b". And no, that's not directed at you

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:43 PM

Another thing to note is how Bill James ranks them. Through the year 2000, with Pedro's peak behind him, though he had and has plenty left, he puts Pedro at #29 and Koufax at #10.

From 2001 on, Pedro has put up a 57-20 record, and an ERA+ around 175 or so (just glancing at the stats). Excellent, yes, but I don't think it would make him jump 20 pitchers. Frankly, I don't know why James ranks him like this, but its interesting.

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

A couple things:

Edited for brevity.

True enough. It would be foolish to consider a rating system infallible.

One advantage math has over memory, the removal of bias and sentiment. I like the numbers and the game.

The girl is Jessica Alba. A certain level of fame from idle hands and dark angels.

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Another thing to note is how Bill James ranks them. Through the year 2000, with Pedro's peak behind him, though he had and has plenty left, he puts Pedro at #29 and Koufax at #10.

From 2001 on, Pedro has put up a 57-20 record, and an ERA+ around 175 or so (just glancing at the stats). Excellent, yes, but I don't think it would make him jump 20 pitchers. Frankly, I don't know why James ranks him like this, but its interesting.

Bill James is extremely conservative with his rankings when a players career is far from over.

TonyJ · 03-27-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Bill James is extremely conservative with his rankings when a players career is far from over.

Indeed. He had ARod ranked below players who he had already passed at the time the book was written.

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:49 PM

The flip side to your outlier argument, DY, is that pitching in a run dampened environment and in an extreme pitchers park would make it easier to dominate. Much like the effect Coors Field would have on the performance and confidence of batters in an era of offensive bloom. And the dismay it brings to hurlers. I tend to think these things even out, meself.

GForce · 03-27-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Well, there you have it: Gforce just admitted to being Bud Selig.

Personal attacks like this are against TOS. Reported.

GH

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Edited for brevity.

True enough. It would be foolish to consider a rating system infallible.

One advantage math has over memory, the removal of bias and sentiment. I like the numbers and the game.

The girl is Jessica Alba. A certain level of fame from idle hands and dark angels.

That's Jessica Alba? Of course I know who she is; she's a top 10er. Just doesn't look like her...maybe it's me. Excellent choice. I take it you'll be seeing Sin City this weekend? I know I will.

And DH, this is baseball! You gotta have bias and sentiment! We aren't stock brokers, we're fans. I'll admit to loving Koufax, he's my favorite pitcher ever, and I'm only 20 years old. I'm gonna fight hard to show others how wrong they are about him. But still, I think Pedro is better. If I owned a team though, I'm taking Sandy.

You gotta love it and have fun!

DamnYankees · 03-27-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

The flip side to your outlier argument, DY, is that pitching in a run dampened environment and in an extreme pitchers park would make it easier to dominate. Much like the effect Coors Field would have on the performance and confidence of batters in an era of offensive bloom. And the dismay it brings to hurlers. I tend to think these things even out, meself.

Actually, I think Coors field allows better pitchers to look even better. You throw Pedro into Coors, and you might be looking at an ERA+ (park-adjusted) near 350, since he has so much more room for greatness.

Depends on how you look at it.

darkhorse · 03-27-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

And DH, this is baseball! You gotta have bias and sentiment! We aren't stock brokers, we're fans. I'll admit to loving Koufax, he's my favorite pitcher ever, and I'm only 20 years old. I'm gonna fight hard to show others how wrong they are about him. But still, I think Pedro is better. If I owned a team though, I'm taking Sandy.

True dat. But, I'm biased towards getting it right. If my Rangers had a similar obsession, perhaps I would be a happier baseball fan.

LOL

JDOldSchool · 03-27-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aadik

Dola, if someone had DMB, I'd be interested in a sim for the Giants sans bonds- I predict a 74 win team at best.

They're not a whole lot better than this WITH Bonds.

03-27-2005, 07:43 PM	#451
DamnYankees All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,644	Another thing to note is how Bill James ranks them. Through the year 2000, with Pedro's peak behind him, though he had and has plenty left, he puts Pedro at #29 and Koufax at #10. From 2001 on, Pedro has put up a 57-20 record, and an ERA+ around 175 or so (just glancing at the stats). Excellent, yes, but I don't think it would make him jump 20 pitchers. Frankly, I don't know why James ranks him like this, but its interesting. Last edited by DamnYankees; 03-27-2005 at 07:44 PM.

03-27-2005, 07:49 PM	#455
darkhorse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: fort worth, tx Posts: 10,850	The flip side to your outlier argument, DY, is that pitching in a run dampened environment and in an extreme pitchers park would make it easier to dominate. Much like the effect Coors Field would have on the performance and confidence of batters in an era of offensive bloom. And the dismay it brings to hurlers. I tend to think these things even out, meself. __________________ "The Human Torch was denied a bank loan."