Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 76
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,035
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampirate:24150551
    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    Hard to include statistics that the websites doing the calculations don't actually carry.

    They should, they honestly should, we live in an age where so much information is available.

    Infield singles and ground rule doubles aren't worth anything more or less than other singles or doubles in evaluating skill/production. The only thing that makes them more or less valuable events is the ability for runners to advance further. There is a difference in the value between a regular single and an infield single in terms of run production, yes. The problem is that difference is not a reflection of something the hitter had control over.

    Well the same could be said for being hit by a pitch, outside of covering the plate, the hitter has no control about where the ball is going to land. Also bunt singles are infield singles and the hitter does have control in that situation so I respectfully disagree here. So what should be in wOBA, stats that the player has no control over or production in which there is varying degrees on luck?

    Why do you think all home runs are counted the same in wOBA? Is a grand slam not worth more than a solo homer? Batting with the bases loaded isn't a skill, though, so differentiating between them doesn't allow wOBA to accomplish it's stated purpose.

    Getting an infield single, a perfect example is Ichiro, is a skill. The guy slaps the ball and because of his speed, he manages to get alot of infield singles.

    The ground rule double should count simply because it is being scored that way. To the team a regular double has more value than a ground rule double has.

    Again, is wOBA measuring production only or skill?


    There are other statistics that you can use to reflect hit types and results more accurately, although those statistics aren't very predictive. wOBA is.

    WPA and RE24 are what you might be looking for.

    ROE isn't included because it's a noise issue in the data. There is some skill involved which would seem to warrant its inclusion. MGL has said he uses "implied ROE" in his linear weights when he calculates out values for different events. Basically, a ground ball gets a slightly different value than a K.
    All good and true, I never had any gripes about any other stats really, just wOBA for my reasons stated, and again, it IS getting better.

    Just curious, can you name all of the advanced stats in baseball?
    Hitters cannot control who and how many people are on base when they bat.

    The number of men on and their location on the bases is the only reason why different kinds of hits are more or less valuable. I don't get why you can't see that. The batter literally has zero control over the situations they bat in. Only what they do in their PA.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hjgilber View Post
    Hey Vamp, are you just going to ignore answering my question?
    You can and should use what you wish. I never said you should use any other stats besides mine. I've said from the very start the formula was most likely flawed in some way (and to take it a bit easy on me). However on the claims I made with it, even if they don't match up to the advanced stats of today, I have provided my reasons and I have provided examples.

    I'm going to close this whole thread this way.

    Should you use it in place of other, more proven advanced stats? No.

    Does my stat show you how productive a player has been at every bat, per game and per the year? Yes.

    Does my stat show it better than the other advanced stats that are out there? No.

    Should you use it if you want for fun and are curious to see the results? Sure why not.

    Also just because there is a stat that's been highly regarded doesn't mean I or you can't point out it's flaws. And before you say anything, yes, I already knew from the beginning that my stat would have flaws. I'm just defending it on the basis when you say it doesn't do what I said.

    Fair enough?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    Hitters cannot control who and how many people are on base when they bat.

    The number of men on and their location on the bases is the only reason why different kinds of hits are more or less valuable. I don't get why you can't see that. The batter literally has zero control over the situations they bat in. Only what they do in their PA.
    Yes, but a ground rule double and a infield single still are less valuable than regular singles and doubles.

    Please explain bunt singles then and tell me why intentional walks should not be included?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,035
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampirate:24153972
    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    Hitters cannot control who and how many people are on base when they bat.

    The number of men on and their location on the bases is the only reason why different kinds of hits are more or less valuable. I don't get why you can't see that. The batter literally has zero control over the situations they bat in. Only what they do in their PA.
    Yes, but a ground rule double and a infield single still are less valuable than regular singles and doubles.

    Please explain bunt singles then and tell me why intentional walks should not be included?
    From the batters standpoint they aren't less valuable at all because their value is tied to runners on base. Again, runners on base have nothing to do with the batter's ability.

    This is like talking to a door.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    From the batters standpoint they aren't less valuable at all because their value is tied to runners on base. Again, runners on base have nothing to do with the batter's ability.

    This is like talking to a door.
    You didn't answer my other 2 questions. Why aren't infield singles in (if a batter bunts and gets on base, that IS skill) or intentional walks?

    Also i'm asking again, does wOBA determine a player's skill or a players production. I'm getting conflicting answers from people. If it is skill take HBP out, if it's on production alone, put inentional walks, infiled singles and ground rule doubles in.

    You'd be surprised at who agrees with me on this part.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,035
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampirate View Post
    You didn't answer my other 2 questions. Why aren't infield singles in (if a batter bunts and gets on base, that IS skill) or intentional walks?

    Also i'm asking again, does wOBA determine a player's skill or a players production. I'm getting conflicting answers from people. If it is skill take HBP out, if it's on production alone, put inentional walks, infiled singles and ground rule doubles in.

    You'd be surprised at who agrees with me on this part.
    wOBA is context neutral.


    If that's something you can't understand, maybe you should go read the "basics" thread and come back.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    wOBA is context neutral.


    If that's something you can't understand, maybe you should go read the "basics" thread and come back.
    And you still haven't answered why intentional walks and infield singles should not be in the formula. And no, those 2 stats do not rely on people on base.

    Another fact is Ground Rule doubles have a different impact on the game than a regular double does, therefore the value of a ground rule double should be measured seperately.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,035
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampirate View Post
    And you still haven't answered why intentional walks and infield singles should not be in the formula. And no, those 2 stats do not rely on people on base.

    Another fact is Ground Rule doubles have a different impact on the game than a regular double does, therefore the value of a ground rule double should be measured seperately.
    Lol, Ok.

    Whatever you say.

    Stuff your fingers in your ears and don't pay attention. The only reason I've been responding to you at all is that I don't want someone else who is interested in advanced statistics to come into this thread and think you're on to something. You're not.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    You haven't proved a damn thing yourself.

    And you STILL haven't answered my question yet.

    It sounds like you are dodging it now.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    7,035
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Vampirate View Post
    You haven't proved a damn thing yourself.

    And you STILL haven't answered my question yet.

    It sounds like you are dodging it now.
    I answered your question like 10 times. You're either not paying attention or don't understand. The latter is more likely given your made up stat.


    Answer this question for me: What makes an infield single/bunt single less valuable than a solid line drive single?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    12,693
    vCash
    1500
    Half the stuff vamp gripes about aren't addressed any better in his stat.
    You have no idea how excited I am right now.


  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    938
    vCash
    1500
    Why does everyone have to rip Vamp? Sure his stat is flawed and proves things that other stats already prove, and that there are better stats. But, when it is said and done, I think it is kind of cool what he did. How many of you guys have taken the time and thought to try to come up with a stat to prove something? I know I haven't, and I am sure it isn't easy. He has already acknowledged that it is flawed and there are probably better stats, but he had an idea and ran with it.

    Vamp, I think it is cool what you did, sure it is flawed, but trying to come up with your own stat is pretty cool, even if it is flawed.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    37,033
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade>Kobe View Post
    Because, over the past 3 years, wOBA has actually correlated to runs scored than has wRC+.

    Park adjustments are nice, but they clearly need work. The biggest problem I have with park adjustments is they only adjust for home ballparks. Why aren't we adjusting Red Sox players for playing not only 81 games at Fenway, but another 9 or 10 at Yankee Stadium? Why don't San Diego players get adjusted for all of their road games in San Fran and Los Angeles? Or the AL West for having only one hitters park?

    I'm convinced that full-schedule park-adjustments would be a big improvement. As we're doing it now, it seems to not always be a real improvement. It is important in that it makes necessary adjustments for a snap shot, but as far as wOBA and wRC+ are concerned, wOBA has performed better over the last 3-5 years if my recollection is correct (I haven't looked any further).
    Excellent points

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    39,140
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidersfan93 View Post
    Why does everyone have to rip Vamp? Sure his stat is flawed and proves things that other stats already prove, and that there are better stats. But, when it is said and done, I think it is kind of cool what he did. How many of you guys have taken the time and thought to try to come up with a stat to prove something? I know I haven't, and I am sure it isn't easy. He has already acknowledged that it is flawed and there are probably better stats, but he had an idea and ran with it.

    Vamp, I think it is cool what you did, sure it is flawed, but trying to come up with your own stat is pretty cool, even if it is flawed.
    No one is hating on him for making the stat or it being flawed. It's the repeated of trying to help him understand a few things.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    2,563
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidersfan93 View Post
    Why does everyone have to rip Vamp? Sure his stat is flawed and proves things that other stats already prove, and that there are better stats. But, when it is said and done, I think it is kind of cool what he did. How many of you guys have taken the time and thought to try to come up with a stat to prove something? I know I haven't, and I am sure it isn't easy. He has already acknowledged that it is flawed and there are probably better stats, but he had an idea and ran with it.



    Vamp, I think it is cool what you did, sure it is flawed, but trying to come up with your own stat is pretty cool, even if it is flawed.
    Ah thanks man I appreciate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Driven View Post
    No one is hating on him for making the stat or it being flawed. It's the repeated of trying to help him understand a few things.
    Believe me, i'm not the only one who believes the offensive stats in wOBA need to change.

    Here's a question, what we're your views of the baserunning and reach on error stats in wOBA? How was your thinking on it then vs your thinking on it now?
    If the HBP stat was taken out or something was added what would you think then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Milnertime View Post
    I answered your question like 10 times. You're either not paying attention or don't understand. The latter is more likely given your made up stat.




    Answer this question for me: What makes an infield single/bunt single less valuable than a solid line drive single?
    Simple, it's the same reason why a single has more value than a walk. A double and a infield single have less of an impact on the game than a regular single and double.

    And the simple reason why a single has more impact than a walk is because more runners on base will score from a single than a walk.

    Quote Originally Posted by jej View Post
    Half the stuff vamp gripes about aren't addressed any better in his stat.
    I know, and I made the stat up for fun and you asked about it. My stat is flawed, gotcha.

    However this doesn't mean I can't critique another stat really, especially one that is so widely accepted.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •