Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 761
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    39,261
    Yeah, I like this idea. Maybe edit all of the terms into the first post just for reference.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Great Northeast
    Posts
    29,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Zep View Post
    wOBA's actual formula looks like this in case you're ever bored and want to calculate for yourself:



    That is, (.72 x Non-Intentional Bases on balls + .75 x Hit-by-Pitch + .90 x Singles + .92 x Reached Base on Error + 1.24 x Doubles + 1.56 x Triples + 1.95 x Home Runs)/Total Plate appearances.

    wOBA (from my understanding) is basically OBP, but each specific event that leads to a batter reaching base is given a specific value, or weight (a triple is worth more than a double, a double is worth more than a walk, etc.).
    Is that the fangraph formula or the SC one?

    Actually, I'll expand. Fangraphs uses a different wOBA formula than Statcorner. Which one is the better one in people's opinions? And why? Perhaps this isn't a simple question and warrants it's own thread.

    It does bring up the issue with Saber stuff. .BA is, well .BA. Everyone computes it the same way. The fact that wOBA fluctuates in the way it's acquired probably turns some people off to the concept.
    Last edited by Rylinkus; 06-22-2009 at 04:27 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    69,978

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    69,978
    Quote Originally Posted by poodski View Post
    I will start it off.

    How is UZR/150 figured?

    Because it sure as hell isnt current UZR figured over 150 games. At least not on fangraphs it isnt.

    For example. Last year the Royals had a positive UZR, but a negative UZR/150. Or like this year Nick Swisher has a -.3 UZR in RF, but a 2.6 UZR/150.
    It is UZR over 150 games. But it's 150 defensive games. It's based upon the expected chances at their relative position. Meaning if a 2B plays 9 innings but gets no balls hit to him, he really didn't even play a defensive game.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx...on=OF#fielding

    Right at the beginning of the right columns, it says "DG," that of course stands for Defensive Games.

    The reason the UZR/150 can come out so weird like that is because they simply don't extrapolate UZR. They extrapolate errors, range, arm, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by homie564 View Post
    Ok Sabermetrics + me dont click.. except for the simple things... heres a question i want to know... what sabermetric stat is best to determine a players overall value and skill to a team?
    Lavigne pretty much had it.

    WAR is the best stat in measuring a player's overall value to his team at the moment. Of course, you need to use the best stats in order to measure it correctly.

    A combination of UZR and +/- (you must pay for this though) for defense (some use the Fans' Scouting Report, probably go over this later).

    wOBA is the way to go for offense.

    And FIP or tRA for pitchers. Some like to use ERA with FIP, but tRA is probably the way to go as well.

    The whole concept of WAR takes a while to explain, and honestly probably deserves its own thread. I believe seamhead made a post about it in the MLB forum, maybe he could repost it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rylinkus View Post
    Is that the fangraph formula or the SC one?

    Actually, I'll expand. Fangraphs uses a different wOBA formula than Statcorner. Which one is the better one in people's opinions? And why? Perhaps this isn't a simple question and warrants it's own thread.

    It does bring up the issue with Saber stuff. .BA is, well .BA. Everyone computes it the same way. The fact that wOBA fluctuates in the way it's acquired probably turns some people off to the concept.
    I believe the major difference is that fangraphs incorporates stolen bases into its equation. Everything else is just alterations of the historical data. In the longrun, the difference shouldn't be large. I prefer SC simply because of wOBA*.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilly Bohnson View Post
    Okay, so basically it goes like this. You know how stuff like a single, a double, a walk, and a homerun, etc. each have a run expectancy attached to them? That is, for example, a single is worth let's say half a run, meaning for every single that is hit it generally leads to half a run scored on average. Well what wOBA does, is it takes all of what a player did, all their singles, doubles, homers, etc., attaches their run expectancy for each of those events, and then multiplies them by certain mulitpliers that make wOBA on the same scale as OBP to make it easier to understand. So for example about .335 would be average, .350 would be pretty good, and .400 would f'ing awesome.
    And run expectancy = move over value (slugging in a way) + get on-base value (OBP).

    It's context-neutral, meaning it doesn't take into account any type of situation. It's just the marginal value of the event given a neutral environment.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,589
    Here's my WAR thread:

    http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums...d.php?t=263993

    But, if you really want to understand WAR, read these two posts (one is for pitcher's, and the other is hitter's):

    Pitcher WAR

    Position Player WAR

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Rylinkus View Post
    Is that the fangraph formula or the SC one?

    Actually, I'll expand. Fangraphs uses a different wOBA formula than Statcorner. Which one is the better one in people's opinions? And why? Perhaps this isn't a simple question and warrants it's own thread.
    Because Fangraphs incorporates SBs and CSs, and does not incorporate NIBB and ROE (or one of the two; I forgot). SC does not incorporate baserunning, and does incorporate NIBB and ROE.

    Basically, SC sticks with the original wOBA formula. The NIBB and ROE part is really not too much of a problem, though; it's the base-stealing. I don't feel it has a place in a hitting metric.

    Plus, Fangraphs doesn't park-adjust wOBA. It parks adjust wRAA, which is the counting metric based off of wOBA. SC does have a park-adjusted version of wOBA, and a counting version.

    It does bring up the issue with Saber stuff. .BA is, well .BA. Everyone computes it the same way. The fact that wOBA fluctuates in the way it's acquired probably turns some people off to the concept.
    Yeah, I agree. I meant to post this at The Book Blog, but I forgot to.
    Last edited by Seamhead; 06-22-2009 at 05:04 PM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mom's Basement
    Posts
    28,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Seamhead View Post
    And run expectancy = move over value (slugging in a way) + get on-base value (OBP).

    It's context-neutral, meaning it doesn't take into account any type of situation. It's just the marginal value of the event given a neutral environment.
    Yeah, good point. Most run expectancy charts talk about the environment, so how many outs and runner on there are, but wOBA doesn't. That's an important distinction.


  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maspeth (Queens), NY
    Posts
    29,725
    How exactly does FIP and tRA work? What are they measuring and why is it better than ERA?

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mom's Basement
    Posts
    28,033
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsfan89 View Post
    How exactly does FIP and tRA work? What are they measuring and why is it better than ERA?
    FIP is based just on strikeouts, walks, hit batters, and homeruns allowed. Those are in general the main things a pitcher has under their control. It attempts to take defense out of the equation. I don't like it too much because it ignores things like GB/FB ratio, and also shortchanges the rare guy that can sustain a below average hit rate regardless of defense.

    tRA takes FIP a step further. It I believe attaches run values to batted ball types, ground balls, fly balls, line drives, strikeouts, homers, etc., and calculates expected ERA based on those.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5,589
    It's not ERA. It'd just be RA.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    69,978
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsfan89 View Post
    How exactly does FIP and tRA work? What are they measuring and why is it better than ERA?
    JB explained it basically. Both stats eliminate defense, as FIP's definition is "a measure of all those things for which a pitcher is specifically responsible."

    They're measuring the same thing ERA does, runs allowed (tRA is on a slightly different scale). The reason they're better than ERA is because ERA fluctuates too much. ERA and WHIP depend on defense too much, as well as park factors and in small sample sizes, luck. Over time ERA isn't a terrible statistic, and for team ERA over a season, it's team-dependent as it looks at pitchers and their defense.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maspeth (Queens), NY
    Posts
    29,725
    Will it account for groundball pitchers who don't strike out a ton of guys but get lots of grounders?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    69,978
    What do you mean? Groundballs provide the smallest run expectancy for balls in play (with the exception of infield pop-ups of course), so it wouldn't be a terrible thing. It depends on your definition of "a ton" and "lots". Give me a pitcher for example.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Maspeth (Queens), NY
    Posts
    29,725
    Never mind I understand. Thanks alot guys

Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •