|
||||
|
|
OOTP 14 - General Discussions Discuss the new 2013 version of Out of the Park Baseball here! |
|
Thread Tools |
02-23-2013, 11:08 AM | #41 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 262
|
Quote:
Not a slight on you at all, though. It's just that miss-used statistics really bug me. No statistic is bad, only interpretations are bad. Either way, I see no reason NOT to inclued IRS% in the game. |
|
02-23-2013, 02:13 PM | #42 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,928
|
|
02-23-2013, 02:58 PM | #43 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
And it has some limited use. But mainly it's informative.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-23-2013, 04:14 PM | #44 | |
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 146
|
Quote:
As for their calculation of luck...you can't simply force the variables into being identically distributed and divide that standard deviation by the actual standard deviation. That's extremely oversimplified. A better way of going about it would be to calculate the variance in BABIP for each specific player over a specific age period like 25-30. Then average the variances of a large sample of players and find the variance in that average. This number will undoubtedly be more accurate and much smaller, as I expected. Also, the way they calculated it was wrong, even if you use their method. They calculated the idd variance using n=610 since there were 610 balls in play in a season on average for a qualifying pitcher. They then compared this to the standard deviation of the entire 6 year period using all of the data form all of the pitchers. This is incorrect. Essentially they are comparing the standard deviation in one season to the standard deviation over a 6 year period, which balloons the "luck" percentage. The n value should not be 610. It should be the total balls in play over the 6 years of data for all the pitchers, which is a way, way, way larger number than 610. This would decrease the "luck" variance considerably. Also, for their calculation on the effect of defense and stadium, they oversimplified the problem again. They calculate the effect of stadium and defense on BABIP by averaging the BABIP of certains teams over a 7 year period and finding the standard deviation. That doesn't make sense because each year, teams change. The standard deviation of team BABIP will approach 0 as you use data further back in history because defenses fluctuate from good to bad. In theory, all teams will have equal defenses if you look at baseball from its beginnings...i.e. a standard deviation of 0. Does that mean defenses have 0 effect on BABIP? No. It means no team has an inherit advantage over another team in defense, if you look at a 100 year period. Last edited by BeancheBlanco; 02-23-2013 at 04:32 PM. |
|
02-23-2013, 05:13 PM | #45 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
/fail
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-23-2013, 05:54 PM | #46 |
Minors (Double A)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 146
|
no offense but I feel like all of your posts are 3 word, condescending remarks. Why don't you actually address what I said? I put time and effort to read your link and make my own conclusion from it and for all I know you didn't even read my post
Last edited by BeancheBlanco; 02-23-2013 at 05:57 PM. |
02-24-2013, 08:42 PM | #47 |
All Star Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Planet Texas
Posts: 1,565
|
Sweet furry kitten balls!
I don't care if it's luck, science or voodoo math - I want to see it reported in the game!!!
__________________
Stewarding the expansion TAIWAN EXPLOSIVE GO SALMON in the NL West. As the defending NL West Champions, the SALMON fall to the wildcard Dakota Rushmores in the first round in seven games. |
Bookmarks |
|
|