View Full Version : Stat I made up called 'BaE' or Bat Efficiancy

Vampirate

10-10-2012, 12:52 AM

Before I begin i'm just gonna say i'm not a math geek or a very hard core baseball fan. This is a stat that measures a value of a batter only.

This formula could and probably does have gigantic holes but let's see how this can work.

I will explain why I view each and such.

The formula is thus:

(0.10*Sac Bunt) + (Sac Fly*0.25) + (IBB*0.50) + (BB*0.75) + (Infield Single*0.85) + (Single*1) + (Double*2) + (Triple*3) + (HR*4)

__________________________________________________ _______

PA

There you have it. I've taken out the HBP stat as that should be charged to the pitcher, not credited to the hitter.

I've put in intentional walks, infield singles, sac flies and sacrifice bunts and have put my own value on them.

Once you have done all this, then imo you find out a hitters true worth. (mind you this could be really flawed but hey, I gave it a shot)

Jeffy25

10-10-2012, 01:21 AM

Are you just attempting to find something better than wOBA?

wOBA value is based on the creation of runs each year and that is how the weights are created, and it's baed on the league average OBP.

Not attempting to be rude, but you should probably read up on wOBA a little more, and if you think edits should be made, then you should consider modifying the stat, or even contacting Tom Tango himself (he is rather easy to reach, has his own site) and talk about why these editions were not put in originally, or if he didn't think about them already.

Vampirate

10-10-2012, 01:33 AM

Are you just attempting to find something better than wOBA?

wOBA value is based on the creation of runs each year and that is how the weights are created, and it's baed on the league average OBP.

Not attempting to be rude, but you should probably read up on wOBA a little more, and if you think edits should be made, then you should consider modifying the stat, or even contacting Tom Tango himself (he is rather easy to reach, has his own site) and talk about why these editions were not put in originally, or if he didn't think about them already.

From what i've read wOBA is a batter's stat and is supposed to tell how much value per bat a batter has. I just personally don't see how a stolen base or a hit by pitch is the result of a batter's skill.

And yup, I guess I am trying to come up with something better. Who knows what new kind of stat will be coming up. All the stats sabr heads are glossing over might seem very outdated and in a few years.

All this aside, what do you think of the formula I came up with?

Jeffy25

10-10-2012, 01:36 AM

Why is a sac fly worth a quarter of a single?

Why is a walk worth .75 of a single?

Or that an infield single is worth .85 of a single?

Where did you come up with that?

Vampirate

10-10-2012, 01:52 AM

Why is a sac fly worth a quarter of a single?

Why is a walk worth .75 of a single?

Or that an infield single is worth .85 of a single?

Where did you come up with that?

Well a wall is a free pass to first base on 4 balls. I view it less than a single simply because unless the bases are loaded, the player is going to first base and advancing any runners over.

A single is worth more simply because there is much more chance to drive in a run or 3 than a walk, also a single forces the defence to make a play. A walk very rarely does this.

Edit: A sac fly is still important as it drives in a run, however it gives up an out and it's nowhere near as hitting a single is when runners are in scoring position. You could very well argue the sac fly is worth a quarter of the vlaue as hitting a single is.

I view an infield single to be less valuable than a single than a single that a ball get into the outfield simply because there's much less chance of driving in more runs.

A good example of an infield single is an extremely well place bunt. the pitcher has no play and everyone that might be on base advances, there's a chance someone scores.

Basically the batter has a chance to generate the most runs with a single first, infield single second, then a walk third.

Well that's how I view it anyways. As to the exact number well as I said, i'm no math head. I just view a infield single to be slightly less valuable than a single, and a walk to be slightly less valuable than an infield single.

My math could be way off as I said, but I stand by what is more valuable than what.

Jeffy25

10-10-2012, 02:42 AM

Well a wall is a free pass to first base on 4 balls. I view it less than a single simply because unless the bases are loaded, the player is going to first base and advancing any runners over.

A single is worth more simply because there is much more chance to drive in a run or 3 than a walk, also a single forces the defence to make a play. A walk very rarely does this.

Edit: A sac fly is still important as it drives in a run, however it gives up an out and it's nowhere near as hitting a single is when runners are in scoring position. You could very well argue the sac fly is worth a quarter of the vlaue as hitting a single is.

I view an infield single to be less valuable than a single than a single that a ball get into the outfield simply because there's much less chance of driving in more runs.

A good example of an infield single is an extremely well place bunt. the pitcher has no play and everyone that might be on base advances, there's a chance someone scores.

Basically the batter has a chance to generate the most runs with a single first, infield single second, then a walk third.

Well that's how I view it anyways. As to the exact number well as I said, i'm no math head. I just view a infield single to be slightly less valuable than a single, and a walk to be slightly less valuable than an infield single.

My math could be way off as I said, but I stand by what is more valuable than what.

It looks like you are just crap-shooting estimates.

Why not look at how many runs are created across all of baseball based on each action and see what their values are? That would give you the ability to properly estimate the variance between each and thus have a proper outcome as a result.

An example, there were 8261 doubles in all of baseball in 2012, of the 21,017 runs scored in 2012, how many were created by doubles? Then you would have the exact value of a double, and could correlate it appropriately, as well correlate it to each other positive offensive value (sac bunt for example).

You also might be interested to know that overall in baseball, the sac bunt is in general, a negative run creator and actually hurts teams ability to score runs.

Vampirate

10-10-2012, 03:16 AM

It looks like you are just crap-shooting estimates.

Why not look at how many runs are created across all of baseball based on each action and see what their values are? That would give you the ability to properly estimate the variance between each and thus have a proper outcome as a result.

An example, there were 8261 doubles in all of baseball in 2012, of the 21,017 runs scored in 2012, how many were created by doubles? Then you would have the exact value of a double, and could correlate it appropriately, as well correlate it to each other positive offensive value (sac bunt for example).

You also might be interested to know that overall in baseball, the sac bunt is in general, a negative run creator and actually hurts teams ability to score runs.

It wasn't an exact formula, but what I felt should have been prioritized (still a crapshoot yes).

As to your second paragraph, well with going by that logic, then a double could have a different value in any year. One thing i'm noticing is wOBA seems to be a changing stat (and perhaps it will change again). I'm no math wizard, but I guess it was my belief on what should be in the formula and in what order. I have a really hard time believing a hit by pitch is worth more than a walk of any kind.

As for the bunts. It's only usefull if you are trying to get that 1 extra run very late in the game and your team is having an off night hitting and you have a very bad hitter up.

No doubt, dumb overuse of the bunt results in a loss of runs because you are perposly giving up runs. The sac bunt is usefull, but only in extreme, desperate, unlikely circumstances.

In other words, if you have a player known for at least average hitting, don't give a free out and swing the freaking bat!

WadeKobe

10-10-2012, 02:54 PM

I am with you on including IBB and excluding HBP. However, what you've done here is just throw out random numbers. Jeffy is right, if you want to suggest such changes, why not talk to Tango? wOBA, currently, is the best statistic in the sport for correlation with runs. It is the best we have. Instead of changing the values, why not discuss with Tom why HBP is included and IBB isn't?

Why not do some of your own math to figure out how much an IBB is worth in relation to other events?

Does this not have the same problems as OPS? Saying that a HR is twice as valuable as a double and such?

I am for the chances stated above, but using random numbers isnt going to make the stat better. If all you want to do is get rid of HBP, then why not just do that instead of fixing whats not broken?

Vampirate

10-21-2012, 10:20 PM

Does this not have the same problems as OPS? Saying that a HR is twice as valuable as a double and such?

I am for the chances stated above, but using random numbers isnt going to make the stat better. If all you want to do is get rid of HBP, then why not just do that instead of fixing whats not broken?

I've actually got another formula, actually did some math and have reasons on them.

I won't post it as it most likely does have flaws in it, but the results when I did the calculations on the formula were interesting to say the least.

In general though, I like to get into stats alot and such when i'm into something. Happens alot with video games that have stats.

But hey, that me silly person who likes to get into the stuff for fun.

Heck, they may get shot down, but it's fun to come up with the stuff when i'm ambitious for it.

Are the weights derived from the league or actual play somehow? If not, then chances are they aren't accurate.

I'd actually like to see the formula

Vampirate

10-21-2012, 11:12 PM

Are the weights derived from the league or actual play somehow? If not, then chances are they aren't accurate.

I'd actually like to see the formula

"Take it with a grain of salt of course but my curiosity got a hold of me.

I call it Power Average or PoA for short.

The Formula is thus.

(Walk*0.25)+(Single *0.25)+(Double*0.5)+(Triple*0.75)+(HR*1)

_________________________________________

PA

You'll notice it's alot like SLG but in reverse with a tweak.

Before I start, this is just to measure how far a player would get around the diamond on avg per plate appearance.

If a player hit's a homerun he would go around all the bases.

If a player hits a double he would go half way around the bases.

A triple would be 75 percent around the bases.

A single and a walk would be 25 percent around the bases. And before you say a single isn't the same as a walk of course not, however they both do advance the player to first base regardless.

This is simply to measure the percentage a player gets around the bases per at bat.

So let's take the triple crown winner Miguel Cabrera.

Cabrera hit 44 Home runs, 40 Doubles, 117 singles and had 66 walks.

The Formula thus is.

(66*0.25=16.5)+ (117*0.25=29.25)+(40*0.5=20)+

(0*.75=0)+(44*1=44)

Add 16.5, 29.25, 20 and 44 together and you get 109.75.

Cabrera has 697 Plate Appearences thus

109.75

______

697

Thus Cabrera's PoA is 0.1574605.

What that means is simply Cabrera averages at 15.7% around the bases per at bat. Or the rate around the bases he got per at bat.

Interestingly enough, if you take Cabrera's 697 plate appearances divided by the number of games he played he averaged.

697

_____

161

Cabrera averaged 4.3291925 plate appearances per game.

If you take his PoA of 0.1574605 and times it by his averaged plate appearances per game of 4.3291925 it would equal that Cabrera got around the bases at an average of 0.6816768 per game.

Or Cabrera got around the bases at an average rate of just over 68% per game total, or you can say he's worth over 2 bases per game, but not quite 3.

If a player is at 0.50 per game than that player is worth 2 bases per game, or in other words a double.

Another interesting thing is if you take the average PoA per game at 0.6816768 and times it by the number of games he has played in it would say that throughout the whole year he made a PoA total of 109.74513.

Remarkably close to how many runs he has scored.

So what does this all mean? Probably not much as i've done no where as much research as the other professionals who did the advanced stats.

I guess there are just times when i get curious and run numbers when I get into it.

It was fun to come up with this make believe stat."

It's just to measure how far a player get's around the bases with the hits the player has and the walks the player has.

The forumula is NOT saying that a walk has the same value as a hit, but that both have the player ending up at first base.

It's most likely flawed and whatnot I will admit.

Go have fun chewing it out. :p

hjgilber

10-22-2012, 08:22 PM

The reason this is bad is because you are doing the same thing that makes SLG a bad stat.

A double is not worth twice as much as a single. A tripple is not worth 3 times more than a single, etc.

You need more specific values for the events. Plus giving a positive value to a sac bunt is just really stupid, like incredibly.

This is sort of fail, sorry man. wOBA exists, just use it. No matter what you do, your math/work will be a complete waste of time because wOBA will still be better.

Vampirate

10-22-2012, 11:02 PM

The reason this is bad is because you are doing the same thing that makes SLG a bad stat.

A double is not worth twice as much as a single. A tripple is not worth 3 times more than a single, etc.

You need more specific values for the events. Plus giving a positive value to a sac bunt is just really stupid, like incredibly.

This is sort of fail, sorry man. wOBA exists, just use it. No matter what you do, your math/work will be a complete waste of time because wOBA will still be better.

No, I don't think you understood

When you are on first base you are 25% around the diamind, second base 50% around the diamond, 3rd base 75% around the diamond and finally home plate is 100% around the diamond.

It measures how far around the diamond the player is worth per bat.

hjgilber

10-23-2012, 08:51 AM

No, I don't think you understood

When you are on first base you are 25% around the diamind, second base 50% around the diamond, 3rd base 75% around the diamond and finally home plate is 100% around the diamond.

It measures how far around the diamond the player is worth per bat.

YOU don't understand. That's not how the math behind it works. Who cares about how far you are percentage wise around the diamond lol. It has to relate to the only thing that matters; scoring runs.

Your numbers do not properly demonstrate how well a player does just that. That's why your stat doesn't work, and that's why you need to just stick to wOBA.

This is not a complicated concept. Your stat is majorly flawed, and mostly useless.

Driven

10-23-2012, 09:12 AM

The reason this is bad is because you are doing the same thing that makes SLG a bad stat.

A double is not worth twice as much as a single. A tripple is not worth 3 times more than a single, etc.

You need more specific values for the events. Plus giving a positive value to a sac bunt is just really stupid, like incredibly.

This is sort of fail, sorry man. wOBA exists, just use it. No matter what you do, your math/work will be a complete waste of time because wOBA will still be better.

No, I don't think you understood

When you are on first base you are 25% around the diamind, second base 50% around the diamond, 3rd base 75% around the diamond and finally home plate is 100% around the diamond.

It measures how far around the diamond the player is worth per bat.

But that translates to what?

hjgilber

10-23-2012, 09:51 AM

But that translates to what?

Exactly and lol, SLG already does that, and SLG is a bad stat for reasons I said. It weights each hit improperly. USE wOBA!!!!

Vampirate

10-23-2012, 02:05 PM

But that translates to what?

Let's say a player would be worth .250 (a PoA that would be astonishing to get), this would indicate that they would be worth 1 base per bat or 1 single per bat. A player usually averages somewhere around 4 age at bats per game.

If you take a player of .250 and multiply it by 4, that player would be worth 1 run a game. You take this and multiply it by the number of games the player has played and you will see how much the player might average at the end of the season. Since this player would average a run a game, over a 162 season, the player would score close to 162 runs.

If a player for 162 games had 4 at bats, 1 homerun and 3 strike outs every at game. His PoA would also be worth .250. Obviously, hitting a home run is an automatic run for the player and he would exactly score 162 runs.

Now let's say the player had 1 home run and 1 double every game plus 2 strike outs. The player did this for 162 games.

With the formula the player the player's PoA would be 0.375, or you could say the player is worth 37.5% of a run per bat. since the player averaged 4 bats per game he would be worth 1.5 runs per game. Take this number and multiply it by the games he played and this player would likely score near 243 runs on the season.

Let's take a real world example now, i am going to pick a random player and see if the number's are close. The Player is Dustin Pedroia.

Dustin played in 141 games this year. Dustin had 163 hits, 39 doubles, 3 triples, 15 home runs and 48 walks in 623 plate appearances. Dustin hit 106 sinles that year. Now using the forumla his PoA is 0.1207865. Dustin averaged 4.4184397 plate appearances per game. You take his PoA of 0.1207865 and multiply it by his average plate appearances per game of 4.4184397, you would get 0.5336878. In other words he averaged slightly over half a run per game or he would average just over a double per game.

Take his 0.5336878 and multiply it by the number of games he played and it reads that Dustin should average near 75.249979 runs on the season. Dustin Pedoira scored 81 runs this year. You could say Dustin's poA of 0.1207865 was worth slightly over 12% of a run per bat if you think about it.

hjgilber

10-23-2012, 05:32 PM

Sorry, but this doesn't have any sort of actual worth in terms of estimating value. Your "formula" is flawed and doesn't fill a void in the SABR world.

I don't want to discourage effort, but you aren't getting anywhere with this. The math and reasoning is WAY too basic.

Driven

10-23-2012, 06:24 PM

First of all, why do you divide the title by the number of plate appearances and then multiply it by PA per game, when you can just skip that altogether and do BB(.25) + 1B(.25) + 2B(.50) + 3B(.75) + HR (1) and get the same result?

Secondly, if we're translating this to runs, why wouldn't we just use the exact percentages in the formula for BB, 1B, 2B, 3B and HR to make it more accurate? If the number is useful mainly to figure out how many runs a player is worth, I don't see the point of using physical distance as the percentages.

Vampirate

10-23-2012, 06:27 PM

Sorry, but this doesn't have any sort of actual worth in terms of estimating value. Your "formula" is flawed and doesn't fill a void in the SABR world.

I don't want to discourage effort, but you aren't getting anywhere with this. The math and reasoning is WAY too basic.

Can you prove your opinion?

hjgilber

10-23-2012, 08:49 PM

Can you prove your opinion?

Logic.

According to what you said you want to accomplish you want to create SLG on a different scale. Which is useless, especially since I already discussed how SLG is also a bad statistic. The idea that you weight a double TWICE as much as a single and so on, is an enormous flaw.

Plus the fact that you are using runs scored as your validation is also hugely flawed, since runs scored is mostly a team statistic and not an individual statistic (well at least its not an individual statistic with any sort of relevance to accurately evaluate the type of player someone is).

Also, what does telling us the physical location of a player on a diamond per game have to do with putting a value (in wins, or runs) of a player?

There is so much that is pointless with your statistic, it just seems like you are reaching for something, but there's nothing there.

wOBA is a wonderful statistic, with lots of scientific research that went into it's creation. Use it, and stop wasting your time with some home made statistic that basically gives us nothing of relevance.

BackyardRounder

10-24-2012, 01:21 AM

Vampirate, here is the issue with your statistic, which perhaps these other posters haven't clearly conveyed to you. Sabermetric formulas use values for things such as BB, 2B or HR that are based on studies of what their actual values are in terms of scoring runs. Your formula uses values for things such as BB, 2B or HR that you simply made up on a whim, and are in no way related to their actual value. Therefor, your end result is also in no way related to a player's actual value.

Does that make sense to you?

Vampirate

10-24-2012, 05:02 PM

Alright this is your and the majorities opinion and that's fine. I have my own thoughts and obviously people disagree.

However I must say a few things.

1. Any forumula for advanced stats should never change. If you conduct an experiment, you have the ingrediants and you have your formula. When you have your end result you are happy and you believe it is correct. Thus if you find out that just 1 of your ingrediants was wrong, your whole experiment is a failure.

2. A single's value should NEVER change from year to year, neither should a doubles, triples and a home run. those hits values should be static year after year. If they change year after year, then perhaps, just perhaps there's a flaw in the formula.

3. Just because a formula has been researched to death and has been widely accepted does not guarantee it is correct, or even close. In fact, one of the biggest "facts" in science has already been debunked.

And yes I can prove point 3 if you wish.

If a Home Run isn't worth 1 run, then what is it worth?

And please, don't just put a forumula up because as I said, even the most accepted forumulas in history could be proven dead wrong and way off base.

If there is just 1 flaw in the formula then the whole equasion is useless.

Do not just give me a forumula, EXPLAIN how the formula makes sense.

Give me an example.

Driven

10-24-2012, 06:46 PM

If there is one flaw in a stat, then it failed miserably? Seriously?

Then why are you even trying to come with a formula in the first place? No stat is ever going to be 100% accurate.

I don't get why the value of a single, etc. can't fluctuate either. A player's value is compared to the productivity of the rest of the league. The league fluctuates. 10 years ago, this was an offensive force. Now, the offense is greatly down. Surely that means that the value of a single, a double, a triple and a home run is going to fluctuate. You compare a player to each season.

hjgilber

10-24-2012, 06:55 PM

Alright this is your and the majorities opinion and that's fine. I have my own thoughts and obviously people disagree.

However I must say a few things.

1. Any forumula for advanced stats should never change. If you conduct an experiment, you have the ingrediants and you have your formula. When you have your end result you are happy and you believe it is correct. Thus if you find out that just 1 of your ingrediants was wrong, your whole experiment is a failure.

2. A single's value should NEVER change from year to year, neither should a doubles, triples and a home run. those hits values should be static year after year. If they change year after year, then perhaps, just perhaps there's a flaw in the formula.

3. Just because a formula has been researched to death and has been widely accepted does not guarantee it is correct, or even close. In fact, one of the biggest "facts" in science has already been debunked.

And yes I can prove point 3 if you wish.

If a Home Run isn't worth 1 run, then what is it worth?

And please, don't just put a forumula up because as I said, even the most accepted forumulas in history could be proven dead wrong and way off base.

If there is just 1 flaw in the formula then the whole equasion is useless.

Do not just give me a forumula, EXPLAIN how the formula makes sense.

Give me an example.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/offense/woba/

Study this page. If you still don't understand it, then ask questions.

Rylinkus

10-25-2012, 09:54 PM

Alright this is your and the majorities opinion and that's fine. I have my own thoughts and obviously people disagree.

However I must say a few things.

1. Any forumula for advanced stats should never change. If you conduct an experiment, you have the ingrediants and you have your formula. When you have your end result you are happy and you believe it is correct. Thus if you find out that just 1 of your ingrediants was wrong, your whole experiment is a failure.

2. A single's value should NEVER change from year to year, neither should a doubles, triples and a home run. those hits values should be static year after year. If they change year after year, then perhaps, just perhaps there's a flaw in the formula.

3. Just because a formula has been researched to death and has been widely accepted does not guarantee it is correct, or even close. In fact, one of the biggest "facts" in science has already been debunked.

And yes I can prove point 3 if you wish.

If a Home Run isn't worth 1 run, then what is it worth?

And please, don't just put a forumula up because as I said, even the most accepted forumulas in history could be proven dead wrong and way off base.

If there is just 1 flaw in the formula then the whole equasion is useless.

Do not just give me a forumula, EXPLAIN how the formula makes sense.

Give me an example.

What if the formula is simply pointless?

You've created a formula based on how far a man runs based on a plate appearance. I could point out how you've completely ignored walks, but even still, who cares? What does your stat actually tell us, or attempt to?

A stat like wOBA is supposed to tell us how good a player's offensive performance is, regardless of the team around him. Mainly, what do various types of hits and walks mean in regards to actually scoring runs, based on what has happened. So what is a double truly worth? Well, we can look at every example of a double from last season, and every other season before, and determine how many doubles led to runs scored. And was it one run? 2? 3? More???? And we can do that for every single, double, triple, HBP, etc that transpired. And using those numbers we can see how valuable a double is, based on everything that has happened in the game thus far. And using those values for every type of hit, we create a formula on a scale fans are accustomed to.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is weighted based on actual events. It's certainly a lot more relevant than someone simply grabbing weights for different types of hits out of the air and assuming they hold some meaning.

You can look up which stats correlate to runs scored better than others. You would find that teams with higher OBP score more runs than those with high batting averages. And you would find that a stat like wOBA tends to be a pretty darn good indication of offense. Teams that have guys with high wOBAs tend to score more runs than those that don't.

Is that always the case? Of course not. Then again, not all those who chain smoke die of lung cancer. And some who have never smoked do. But we know better than to think that cigarettes and lung cancer aren't connected.

Vampirate

10-27-2012, 12:50 PM

What if the formula is simply pointless?

You've created a formula based on how far a man runs based on a plate appearance. I could point out how you've completely ignored walks, but even still, who cares? What does your stat actually tell us, or attempt to?

You can call my forumula pointless or anything else you wish.

(Walk*0.25)+(Single *0.25)+(Double*0.5)+(Triple*0.75)+(HR*1)

_________________________________________

PA

But don't you dare say it ignores walks. :D

Basiacally my forumula tells what a players bat is worth per plate appearance.

If the player's PoA is 0.250, then the player is worth a single every at bat.

The forumula pretty much tells you at what rate the player got to 1st, second, third and home when put into a forumula.

Once you find out a player's PoA per plate appearance, you just need to find out how many plate appearances the player averaged per game.

Multiply he player's PoA with the average plate appearance per game and you'll see what the player's production would average out per game.

Cabrera averaged a PoA of 0.6816768 per game, or in other words, Cabrera's bat was worth somewhere between a double and a triple a game considering 0.500 would be averaging a double.

Take the player's PoA per game and multiply it by the number of games the player played and it will tell you around how many runs the player should score in that season.

Cabrera PoA for the entire season was 109.74513, he scored 109 runs. pretty damn accurate there.

Of course scoring runs or producing rbi's has factors like how your team does as well. Like I said, the forumula would say around how many runs the player should score that season.

Then there are cases like Andrew Jones, he scored 103 runs. Looking at his batting statistics this season do you believe his bat was worth 103 runs.

The PoA was 0.1294835 per bat, 0.5570987 per game and over the season, his PoA was 90.249989.

This means Andrew Jones SHOULD have scored closer to 90 runs on the season. Andrew Jones' bat was worth 90 runs this season.

Again, the formula doesn't put a value on the hits themselves, it just tells you at what rate did the player reach all 4 bases when added up.

You first find out the player's PoA, then you multiply it by the player's average plate appearances per game, and you'll find out what the player's bat's value is per game. Then you take that number and multiply it by the number of games played and you'll see how many runs the player's bat was worth over an entire season. Usually the PoA of a player for the season is near 5 runs compared to how many runs they actually scored.

You can use PoA to estimate how many runs a player would score in a season.

Go ahead, pick any player from this season and find out how accurate or inaccurate it is compared to how many runs they scored on the season.

13Lawrie13

10-27-2012, 02:25 PM

I am with you on including IBB and excluding HBP. However, what you've done here is just throw out random numbers. Jeffy is right, if you want to suggest such changes, why not talk to Tango? wOBA, currently, is the best statistic in the sport for correlation with runs. It is the best we have. Instead of changing the values, why not discuss with Tom why HBP is included and IBB isn't?

Why not do some of your own math to figure out how much an IBB is worth in relation to other events?

wRC+ is an improved wOBA. I'm not sure how you can say wOBA is the best we have when wRC+ is better.

You can call my forumula pointless or anything else you wish.

(Walk*0.25)+(Single *0.25)+(Double*0.5)+(Triple*0.75)+(HR*1)

_________________________________________

PA

But don't you dare say it ignores walks. :D

Basiacally my forumula tells what a players bat is worth per plate appearance.

If the player's PoA is 0.250, then the player is worth a single every at bat.

The forumula pretty much tells you at what rate the player got to 1st, second, third and home when put into a forumula.

Once you find out a player's PoA per plate appearance, you just need to find out how many plate appearances the player averaged per game.

Multiply he player's PoA with the average plate appearance per game and you'll see what the player's production would average out per game.

Cabrera averaged a PoA of 0.6816768 per game, or in other words, Cabrera's bat was worth somewhere between a double and a triple a game considering 0.500 would be averaging a double.

Take the player's PoA per game and multiply it by the number of games the player played and it will tell you around how many runs the player should score in that season.

Cabrera PoA for the entire season was 109.74513, he scored 109 runs. pretty damn accurate there.

Of course scoring runs or producing rbi's has factors like how your team does as well. Like I said, the forumula would say around how many runs the player should score that season.

Then there are cases like Andrew Jones, he scored 103 runs. Looking at his batting statistics this season do you believe his bat was worth 103 runs.

The PoA was 0.1294835 per bat, 0.5570987 per game and over the season, his PoA was 90.249989.

This means Andrew Jones SHOULD have scored closer to 90 runs on the season. Andrew Jones' bat was worth 90 runs this season.

Again, the formula doesn't put a value on the hits themselves, it just tells you at what rate did the player reach all 4 bases when added up.

You first find out the player's PoA, then you multiply it by the player's average plate appearances per game, and you'll find out what the player's bat's value is per game. Then you take that number and multiply it by the number of games played and you'll see how many runs the player's bat was worth over an entire season. Usually the PoA of a player for the season is near 5 runs compared to how many runs they actually scored.

You can use PoA to estimate how many runs a player would score in a season.

Go ahead, pick any player from this season and find out how accurate or inaccurate it is compared to how many runs they scored on the season.

You just changed the meaning of your stat. If you want to know how many runs they created, look at wRC+.

I dont know for sure, but Im fairly certain you stat does not tell us anything of value, or is very accurate.

Driven

10-27-2012, 04:39 PM

You can call my forumula pointless or anything else you wish.

(Walk*0.25)+(Single *0.25)+(Double*0.5)+(Triple*0.75)+(HR*1)

_________________________________________

PA

But don't you dare say it ignores walks. :D

Basiacally my forumula tells what a players bat is worth per plate appearance.

If the player's PoA is 0.250, then the player is worth a single every at bat.

The forumula pretty much tells you at what rate the player got to 1st, second, third and home when put into a forumula.

Once you find out a player's PoA per plate appearance, you just need to find out how many plate appearances the player averaged per game.

Multiply he player's PoA with the average plate appearance per game and you'll see what the player's production would average out per game.

Cabrera averaged a PoA of 0.6816768 per game, or in other words, Cabrera's bat was worth somewhere between a double and a triple a game considering 0.500 would be averaging a double.

Take the player's PoA per game and multiply it by the number of games the player played and it will tell you around how many runs the player should score in that season.

Cabrera PoA for the entire season was 109.74513, he scored 109 runs. pretty damn accurate there.

Of course scoring runs or producing rbi's has factors like how your team does as well. Like I said, the forumula would say around how many runs the player should score that season.

Then there are cases like Andrew Jones, he scored 103 runs. Looking at his batting statistics this season do you believe his bat was worth 103 runs.

The PoA was 0.1294835 per bat, 0.5570987 per game and over the season, his PoA was 90.249989.

This means Andrew Jones SHOULD have scored closer to 90 runs on the season. Andrew Jones' bat was worth 90 runs this season.

Again, the formula doesn't put a value on the hits themselves, it just tells you at what rate did the player reach all 4 bases when added up.

You first find out the player's PoA, then you multiply it by the player's average plate appearances per game, and you'll find out what the player's bat's value is per game. Then you take that number and multiply it by the number of games played and you'll see how many runs the player's bat was worth over an entire season. Usually the PoA of a player for the season is near 5 runs compared to how many runs they actually scored.

You can use PoA to estimate how many runs a player would score in a season.

Go ahead, pick any player from this season and find out how accurate or inaccurate it is compared to how many runs they scored on the season.

Again, why in the world are you dividing your stat by the # of Plate appearances, only to have to do more math to get back to the number you were originally at?

It's like you're adding more steps to get nowhere just to make your stat seem more complicated.

Vampirate

10-27-2012, 06:55 PM

You just changed the meaning of your stat. If you want to know how many runs they created, look at wRC+.

I dont know for sure, but Im fairly certain you stat does not tell us anything of value, or is very accurate.

Well I never said it valued a single the same as a walk. Go look when I first talked about PoA. I all along said, when you reach first base you are 25% around the bases, second base, 50% around the bases, third base 75% around the bases, And finally when you reach home, you are fully around the bases.

Therefor hitting a single or taking a walk, both have the player ending up at first.

I understand that you disagree with it all but i'd like an actual example before people say that it is wrong. If you believe so, prove it, don't just say it's wrong show me how.

Vampirate

10-27-2012, 07:05 PM

Again, why in the world are you dividing your stat by the # of Plate appearances, only to have to do more math to get back to the number you were originally at?

It's like you're adding more steps to get nowhere just to make your stat seem more complicated.

Well the original formula tells you how valuable a player is per bat.

Take this number and multiply it by the player's average plate apparance per game and it will tell you how much value the player's bat is per game.

Take that number and multiply it by the number of games and you will find how many runs the player's bat is worth.

I have given examples already explaining how it works.

Instead of just saying it's pointless, why not give me an example that shows my formula as being off base.

hjgilber

10-27-2012, 08:01 PM

LOL at all of this. You are just completely wasting your time.

WadeKobe

10-29-2012, 04:26 AM

wRC+ is an improved wOBA. I'm not sure how you can say wOBA is the best we have when wRC+ is better.

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).

WadeKobe

10-29-2012, 04:32 AM

You can call my forumula pointless or anything else you wish.

(Walk*0.25)+(Single *0.25)+(Double*0.5)+(Triple*0.75)+(HR*1)

_________________________________________

PA

But don't you dare say it ignores walks. :D

Basiacally my forumula tells what a players bat is worth per plate appearance.

If the player's PoA is 0.250, then the player is worth a single every at bat.

The forumula pretty much tells you at what rate the player got to 1st, second, third and home when put into a forumula.

Once you find out a player's PoA per plate appearance, you just need to find out how many plate appearances the player averaged per game.

Multiply he player's PoA with the average plate appearance per game and you'll see what the player's production would average out per game.

Cabrera averaged a PoA of 0.6816768 per game, or in other words, Cabrera's bat was worth somewhere between a double and a triple a game considering 0.500 would be averaging a double.

........

Again, the formula doesn't put a value on the hits themselves, it just tells you at what rate did the player reach all 4 bases when added up.

You've done nothing but offer us Secondary Average without the basestealing information. You haven't offered anything new. This is very old and it has been replaced by statistics which have been shown to correlate better to runs.

You first find out the player's PoA, then you multiply it by the player's average plate appearances per game, and you'll find out what the player's bat's value is per game. Then you take that number and multiply it by the number of games played and you'll see how many runs the player's bat was worth over an entire season. Usually the PoA of a player for the season is near 5 runs compared to how many runs they actually scored.

You can use PoA to estimate how many runs a player would score in a season.

Go ahead, pick any player from this season and find out how accurate or inaccurate it is compared to how many runs they scored on the season.

You have no methodology for determining your bases-to-runs conversion.

Take the player's PoA per game and multiply it by the number of games the player played and it will tell you around how many runs the player should score in that season.

Cabrera PoA for the entire season was 109.74513, he scored 109 runs. pretty damn accurate there.

Of course scoring runs or producing rbi's has factors like how your team does as well. Like I said, the forumula would say around how many runs the player should score that season.

Then there are cases like Andrew Jones, he scored 103 runs. Looking at his batting statistics this season do you believe his bat was worth 103 runs.

The PoA was 0.1294835 per bat, 0.5570987 per game and over the season, his PoA was 90.249989.

This means Andrew Jones SHOULD have scored closer to 90 runs on the season. Andrew Jones' bat was worth 90 runs this season.

Like this, here. There is no methodology for your conversion from bases to runs. It also doesn't even begin to address the effects of walks and singles. How do those correlate to runs?

Also, you're only discussing runs scored, not runs produced. That seems unhelpful.

You're literally not offering anything of value at all.

Vampirate

10-29-2012, 12:52 PM

You've done nothing but offer us Secondary Average without the basestealing information. You haven't offered anything new. This is very old and it has been replaced by statistics which have been shown to correlate better to runs.

Well that's because it would measure how good a player is with the bat. PoA is a batting statistic.

I never mentioned about offence including basestealing.

As for everything else, I already admitted from the very start that the formula is probably flawed in some way (to which degree I don't know). However it's very interesting how when you add it all up a player's entire PoA for the season it matches very close to their runs that they scored, or might be even dead on.

People are acting that the formula is way off base. If that was so, then why are the results are accurate? And I already gave you examples.

As I said before, pick a player from this season, use my formula for the player and use it for the entire season.

I would still like to see an example that absolutely proves my formula is trash.

Put my formula to the test is all I ask.

Driven

10-29-2012, 02:08 PM

Let me ask you this question. If are trying to make a stat more accurate than runs, then why are you comparing it to runs and what what exactly is its benefit if were getting nowhere with it?

Not to mention that both stats are cumulative stas as opposed to efficiency. Youre getting no where with this stat. Youve just created another way to inaccuratelu figure out how many runs a player scored.

Driven

10-29-2012, 02:13 PM

Edit: nvm

Vampirate

10-29-2012, 05:48 PM

Let me ask you this question. If are trying to make a stat more accurate than runs, then why are you comparing it to runs and what what exactly is its benefit if were getting nowhere with it?

Not to mention that both stats are cumulative stas as opposed to efficiency. Youre getting no where with this stat. Youve just created another way to inaccuratelu figure out how many runs a player scored.

Simple, it will give you an estimate on how many runs the player should score in the compared to their production of the plate.

Miguel Cabrera had a PoA for the season of 109.74513 and scored 109 runs. It means that his Batting production was very much responsible for the 109 runs he scored. He hit 44 home runs so automatically he's going to score 44 times. So if a Home Run will have the player scoring 1 run when hit you have the factor in the other 3 bases. This is what the formula does.

If a home run is 100% a run every time it's hit then what are the other 3?

Well Cabrera went 100% around the bases 44 times by his own abilities.

He went 50% around the bases 40 times, and 25% around the bases 187 times with walks and singles.

Now let's take the case of Andrew Jones who scored 103 runs, only 6 off of Cabrera. Right away he is guaranteed to score 32 runs on home runs. However his PoA for the entire season was 90.249989. It pretty much indicates that Andrew Jones was nowhere the hitter Cabrera was and also that he was being cashed in on a much higher rate when he got on base. Andrew Jones, based on his battting production he should have scored closer to 90 runs.

Now let's say there was a player PoA of 0.05 per bat. This would be a very poor hitter. For the sake of the argument let's say he averaged 4 at bats per game and played in 162 games. This person would be worth 32.4 runs for the season and would barely score over that unless his teamates would cash him in when he's barely on base. In fact this hitter wouldn't even be worth a single per game, his PoA per game would be .20. This player would go 0 for 4 quite alot and would probably hit a single every now and then.

hjgilber

10-29-2012, 08:51 PM

Dude...it's Adam Jones.

Milnertime

10-30-2012, 02:50 AM

Simple, it will give you an estimate on how many runs the player should score in the compared to their production of the plate.

Miguel Cabrera had a PoA for the season of 109.74513 and scored 109 runs. It means that his Batting production was very much responsible for the 109 runs he scored. He hit 44 home runs so automatically he's going to score 44 times. So if a Home Run will have the player scoring 1 run when hit you have the factor in the other 3 bases. This is what the formula does.

If a home run is 100% a run every time it's hit then what are the other 3?

Well Cabrera went 100% around the bases 44 times by his own abilities.

He went 50% around the bases 40 times, and 25% around the bases 187 times with walks and singles.

Now let's take the case of Andrew Jones who scored 103 runs, only 6 off of Cabrera. Right away he is guaranteed to score 32 runs on home runs. However his PoA for the entire season was 90.249989. It pretty much indicates that Andrew Jones was nowhere the hitter Cabrera was and also that he was being cashed in on a much higher rate when he got on base. Andrew Jones, based on his battting production he should have scored closer to 90 runs.

Now let's say there was a player PoA of 0.05 per bat. This would be a very poor hitter. For the sake of the argument let's say he averaged 4 at bats per game and played in 162 games. This person would be worth 32.4 runs for the season and would barely score over that unless his teamates would cash him in when he's barely on base. In fact this hitter wouldn't even be worth a single per game, his PoA per game would be .20. This player would go 0 for 4 quite alot and would probably hit a single every now and then.

Just saying something does something doesn't make it so.

What everyone else has already said is still true. What your statistic is trying to accomplish leaves a lot to be desired and is being done way, way better by other statistics made by smarter people than you and I.

The point is how well does a statistic correlate to real world runs. Yours might be kinda good at it, but that doesn't mean much. Batting average is kinda good at run correlation. It's still not a good measure of value for a hitter compared to other easily available statistics. Like wOBA.

Vampirate

10-30-2012, 01:06 PM

Just saying something does something doesn't make it so.

What everyone else has already said is still true. What your statistic is trying to accomplish leaves a lot to be desired and is being done way, way better by other statistics made by smarter people than you and I.

The point is how well does a statistic correlate to real world runs. Yours might be kinda good at it, but that doesn't mean much. Batting average is kinda good at run correlation. It's still not a good measure of value for a hitter compared to other easily available statistics. Like wOBA.

While I agree my statistic isn't the best, doesn't mean it can't be used though.

As for wOBA itself, it still needs to be improved, it's getting there but it seriously needs to take out the stat HBP and put in other stats like ground rule doubles and infield singles. But hey, i'll admit it's heading in the right direction.

Milnertime

10-30-2012, 01:19 PM

While I agree my statistic isn't the best, doesn't mean it can't be used though.

As for wOBA itself, it still needs to be improved, it's getting there but it seriously needs to take out the stat HBP and put in other stats like ground rule doubles and infield singles. But hey, i'll admit it's heading in the right direction.

Ground rule doubles and infield singles are in wOBA. Every double and single is included in wOBA. It doesn't need to take out HBP. It's been shown that for some players getting hit by a pitch is a repeatable skill. Getting on base via a HBP adds offensive value, as well, which is what wOBA measures.

Guys like Kevin Youkilis, Prince Fielder, Carlos Quentin, etc. They're all getting hit a lot each year.

Vampirate

10-30-2012, 02:43 PM

Ground rule doubles and infield singles are in wOBA. Every double and single is included in wOBA. It doesn't need to take out HBP. It's been shown that for some players getting hit by a pitch is a repeatable skill. Getting on base via a HBP adds offensive value, as well, which is what wOBA measures.

Guys like Kevin Youkilis, Prince Fielder, Carlos Quentin, etc. They're all getting hit a lot each year.

Please enlighten me how it's a skill to get hit when there are times, quite a few actually that the pithcher let the ball get away from him. HBP relies on luck too much.

Also i'm not the only one who thinks so, there are posters here who agree with me on this point, and they are wOBA lovers.

What I meant was Ground Rule doubles should be seperate from regular doubles and infield singles should be seperate from regular singles and both added to the formula.

Milnertime

10-30-2012, 03:23 PM

Please enlighten me how it's a skill to get hit when there are times, quite a few actually that the pithcher let the ball get away from him. HBP relies on luck too much.

Also i'm not the only one who thinks so, there are posters here who agree with me on this point, and they are wOBA lovers.

What I meant was Ground Rule doubles should be seperate from regular doubles and infield singles should be seperate from regular singles and both added to the formula.

Whether or not it is luck is somewhat irrelevant. Some players consistently get hit a lot. That's a fact. There's a reason the same players tend to get hit more. At some point it stops being lucky and starts being something they have at least partial control over. Add in the fact that any player can just move out of the way of a bad pitch and there's even more correlation to skill. Call it a player's "balls."

In any case, we're talking about a small fraction of wOBA's calculation and honestly it's not worth debating it this much.

Ground rule doubles are doubles. Infield singles are singles. Adding a separate category for them doesn't make much sense. Again, it's all about run correlation. If you can show that separating those two types of hits out and putting them into the formula for wOBA makes the statistic correlate to runs better than it currently does, then I'd be all for it.

The thing is, it probably doesn't.

Another problem with it is record keeping. I'm not sure they actually keep track of infield singles and ground rule doubles. The data is probably there, but it might be more of a pain in the *** than it's worth to put it in useful form. Retrosheet might be able to do it, but I don't know if that's even being used anymore.

Vampirate

10-30-2012, 05:09 PM

Whether or not it is luck is somewhat irrelevant. Some players consistently get hit a lot. That's a fact. There's a reason the same players tend to get hit more. At some point it stops being lucky and starts being something they have at least partial control over. Add in the fact that any player can just move out of the way of a bad pitch and there's even more correlation to skill. Call it a player's "balls."

In any case, we're talking about a small fraction of wOBA's calculation and honestly it's not worth debating it this much.

Ground rule doubles are doubles. Infield singles are singles. Adding a separate category for them doesn't make much sense. Again, it's all about run correlation. If you can show that separating those two types of hits out and putting them into the formula for wOBA makes the statistic correlate to runs better than it currently does, then I'd be all for it.

The thing is, it probably doesn't.

Another problem with it is record keeping. I'm not sure they actually keep track of infield singles and ground rule doubles. The data is probably there, but it might be more of a pain in the *** than it's worth to put it in useful form. Retrosheet might be able to do it, but I don't know if that's even being used anymore.

wOBA from my understanding is supposed to tell you how skilled a batter is. A stat, which should honeslty be charged to the pitcher and not awarded to the batter is in the equation. This needs to be corrected. Players hovering over he plate is not a skill.

I believe it is worth talking about because wOBA is claimed to be the best at determening a player's worth in their batting skills. It probably will be taken out at some point, just as reaching on errors were and stealing was taken out.

An infield single has a much smaller chance at producing runs than a single. A ground rule double will only advance player's on bases to a certain point. Therefore yes, since they have their limits in producing runs when compared to regular singles and doubles, they should be included.

Your last point is bang on though, hopefully more imformation is available as the years progress. I honestly want to not only see a player's average with runners on, but exactly what were the hits he made etc.

Milnertime

10-30-2012, 06:39 PM

wOBA from my understanding is supposed to tell you how skilled a batter is. A stat, which should honeslty be charged to the pitcher and not awarded to the batter is in the equation. This needs to be corrected. Players hovering over he plate is not a skill.

I believe it is worth talking about because wOBA is claimed to be the best at determening a player's worth in their batting skills. It probably will be taken out at some point, just as reaching on errors were and stealing was taken out.

An infield single has a much smaller chance at producing runs than a single. A ground rule double will only advance player's on bases to a certain point. Therefore yes, since they have their limits in producing runs when compared to regular singles and doubles, they should be included.

Your last point is bang on though, hopefully more imformation is available as the years progress. I honestly want to not only see a player's average with runners on, but exactly what were the hits he made etc.

Repeatable = skill.

That's really all I have to say about it. When Kevin Youkilis stops getting hit by a pitch more than just about everyone else, you might have a point.

The skill may be as mundane as he's more willing to leave his elbow out there to get hit than other players are, but that's still a skill. If it were luck, it wouldn't be the same guys topping the HBP charts every year.

Driven

10-30-2012, 09:13 PM

Its about repeatable production. When youre able to take multiple years of large sample sizes. There are trends and consistency which you use to understand the production. Skill is kind of pointless to figure out. It doesnt matter how skilled you are. Its about how much producion you bring. One season brings a big sample size, one that can somewhat even thinga out

Why is your stat allowed to have massive flaws and not tell us much more than we already know, but wOBA is terrible because it has one part that you don't like?

You are talking about how well your stat correlates to runs scored. Why do you ignore how well wOBA correlates?

If your only gripe is with the HBP, then why not just take that out and leave the rest? Why create secondary average/SLG/runs hybrid that doesn't help?

At least use the actual weights, rather than assumptions like SLG% and such does.

Vampirate

10-31-2012, 01:17 PM

Repeatable = skill.

That's really all I have to say about it. When Kevin Youkilis stops getting hit by a pitch more than just about everyone else, you might have a point.

The skill may be as mundane as he's more willing to leave his elbow out there to get hit than other players are, but that's still a skill. If it were luck, it wouldn't be the same guys topping the HBP charts every year.

Agree to disagree, it's no more a skill than unintentional walks are.

Its about repeatable production. When youre able to take multiple years of large sample sizes. There are trends and consistency which you use to understand the production. Skill is kind of pointless to figure out. It doesnt matter how skilled you are. Its about how much producion you bring. One season brings a big sample size, one that can somewhat even thinga out

Honestly, I believe it is more of a pitcher's fault then a batter's production. If the player gets hit, the most likely cause is that the ball got away from the pitcher. If it's about production instead of skill, then I would take out HBP and put in intentional walks, infield singles and ground rule doubles.

Why is your stat allowed to have massive flaws and not tell us much more than we already know, but wOBA is terrible because it has one part that you don't like?

You are talking about how well your stat correlates to runs scored. Why do you ignore how well wOBA correlates?

If your only gripe is with the HBP, then why not just take that out and leave the rest? Why create secondary average/SLG/runs hybrid that doesn't help?

At least use the actual weights, rather than assumptions like SLG% and such does.

I'm only defending my stat on the basis that people think it makes no sense, and can't be used when it does and can. I've never made the claim that it was anywhere perfect or should be used in place instead of advanced stats. Oh and yeah, you wanted to see it, there was that too.

I would have prefered people would have tested it out for fun. At least that way you could have said whatever and I know that you tried it out at least.

As for wOBA, my 3 main complaints were valid, as since then both reach on error and stealing has been taken out. I would still like to see HBP taken out and infield singles and ground rule doubles put in. I have already admitted that wOBA has gotten much better but still needs improvement.

Rylinkus

10-31-2012, 05:10 PM

Agree to disagree, it's no more a skill than unintentional walks are.

Yet the same guys tend to lead the league in HBP year in and year out. What do you attribute that to? Why do guys like Quentin and Youk also sits atop the HBP lists if not for some repeatable skill?

Vampirate

10-31-2012, 05:49 PM

Yet the same guys tend to lead the league in HBP year in and year out. What do you attribute that to? Why do guys like Quentin and Youk also sits atop the HBP lists if not for some repeatable skill?

They are either big or they hover over the plate, or both when they bat. Again, agree to disagree, I don't believe it's a skill.

Rylinkus

10-31-2012, 06:11 PM

They are either big or they hover over the plate, or both when they bat. Again, agree to disagree, I don't believe it's a skill.

But it is inherently linked to those players and is something offensive they offer a team. So when looking at the full scope off a players offensive prowess, something as simple as getting in the way of a baseball matters. Like it or not, Youk is a more valuable asset to a team due to being prone to being plunked.

Driven

10-31-2012, 06:18 PM

They are either big or they hover over the plate, or both when they bat. Again, agree to disagree, I don't believe it's a skill.

Who cares HOW they get hit? Stop looking at skill and start looking at production.

hjgilber

10-31-2012, 07:31 PM

Agree to disagree, it's no more a skill than unintentional walks are.

Honestly, I believe it is more of a pitcher's fault then a batter's production. If the player gets hit, the most likely cause is that the ball got away from the pitcher. If it's about production instead of skill, then I would take out HBP and put in intentional walks, infield singles and ground rule doubles.

I'm only defending my stat on the basis that people think it makes no sense, and can't be used when it does and can. I've never made the claim that it was anywhere perfect or should be used in place instead of advanced stats. Oh and yeah, you wanted to see it, there was that too.

I would have prefered people would have tested it out for fun. At least that way you could have said whatever and I know that you tried it out at least.

As for wOBA, my 3 main complaints were valid, as since then both reach on error and stealing has been taken out. I would still like to see HBP taken out and infield singles and ground rule doubles put in. I have already admitted that wOBA has gotten much better but still needs improvement.

Tell me why I should/would use your statistic when there are many others with the same goal in mind that accomplish it much better and far more accurately?

It doesn't matter if your stat isn't completely useless, and if that's the bar you are setting then yikes. Your stat serves no practical purpose since other stats tell the story in a much more accurate way. That means your stat is redundant.

Vampirate

11-01-2012, 12:21 AM

But it is inherently linked to those players and is something offensive they offer a team. So when looking at the full scope off a players offensive prowess, something as simple as getting in the way of a baseball matters. Like it or not, Youk is a more valuable asset to a team due to being prone to being plunked.

Who cares HOW they get hit? Stop looking at skill and start looking at production.

If that is so, then why not put the stats like reached on error, intentional walks, infield singles, ground rule doubles along with it, why are those stats not included?

Milnertime

11-01-2012, 02:50 AM

If that is so, then why not put the stats like reached on error, intentional walks, infield singles, ground rule doubles along with it, why are those stats not included?

Hard to include statistics that the websites doing the calculations don't actually carry.

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.

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.

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.

Vampirate

11-01-2012, 04:06 PM

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?

hjgilber

11-01-2012, 06:13 PM

Tell me why I should/would use your statistic when there are many others with the same goal in mind that accomplish it much better and far more accurately?

It doesn't matter if your stat isn't completely useless, and if that's the bar you are setting then yikes. Your stat serves no practical purpose since other stats tell the story in a much more accurate way. That means your stat is redundant.

Hey Vamp, are you just going to ignore answering my question?

Milnertime

11-01-2012, 08:38 PM

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.

Vampirate

11-01-2012, 08:54 PM

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?

Vampirate

11-01-2012, 08:57 PM

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?

Milnertime

11-01-2012, 10:12 PM

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.

Vampirate

11-01-2012, 11:37 PM

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.

Milnertime

11-02-2012, 01:37 AM

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.

Vampirate

11-02-2012, 01:45 AM

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.

Milnertime

11-02-2012, 02:38 PM

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.

Vampirate

11-02-2012, 03:52 PM

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.

Milnertime

11-02-2012, 04:16 PM

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?

Half the stuff vamp gripes about aren't addressed any better in his stat.

Raidersfan93

11-05-2012, 02:36 AM

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.

Jeffy25

11-05-2012, 03:28 AM

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

Driven

11-05-2012, 10:27 AM

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 :bang: of trying to help him understand a few things.

Vampirate

11-05-2012, 11:46 AM

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.

No one is hating on him for making the stat or it being flawed. It's the repeated :bang: 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?

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.

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.

Milnertime

11-06-2012, 03:01 AM

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.

1. A single and a walk are two different events. They reflect different aspects of a player's ability/skill/performance. Thus, separating them in the statistic makes sense. Most importantly, they are both under the batter's control.

2. Infield singles and ground rule doubles are still singles and doubles.

3. The biggest point of any of my response to you has to do with the bolded phrase in your post. An infield single and a ground rule double have less impact because of runners on base.

Here's what the fangraphs primer (http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/offense/woba/) on wOBA states:

This stat is context-neutral, meaning it does not take into account if there were runners on base for a player’s hit or if it was a close game at the time.

So, while I don't disagree that infield singles and ground rule doubles are worth less than regular singles and doubles, what you're asking of the statistic is something the statistic itself was never designed to do.

wOBA is interested in what the batter has control over. Runners on base are deliberately ignored because a batter cannot control who and when other players are on base in front of him, same as a runner can't control what a hitter does behind him.

I really hope you're getting this. My point has never been that you're wrong about your assessment of the values of those events. My point is you're expecting wOBA to do something that goes against its stated purpose.

To further the point, I'm going to lay out scenarios for you.

Keep in mind that this is entirely hypothetical and only for illustrative purposes.

Player A hits 30 doubles and every single one of them is a ground rule double, but every time he bats there is a runner on second base, which means he has driven in 30 runs with his doubles.

Player B hits 30 doubles, none of which are ground rule doubles, but every single one of them is with nobody on base in front of him, meaning he didn't drive in a single run with his doubles.

Whose doubles were really more valuable? Player A, right? However, because wOBA doesn't concern itself with where and how many runners were on base for batting events, they are credited with the same amount of production.

A statistic that does what you're asking wOBA to do is WPA, which uses something called the Leverage Index to weight each event based on win probability changes. This statistic correctly weights things like ground rule doubles and infield singles.

So, please, for the love of God understand what I've been saying here. It's confusing at first, but I feel like I've laid this out in a relatively simple way that you should be able to get it.

And may I add that I think it's great that you are getting interested in advanced statistics. More fans should be. I'm not claiming to know more than the average person about them, either, but I definitely have had experience with looking at these statistics and the basics of how they're calculated and their purpose. Asking questions is great, but when you ask questions you have to be able to hear something you may not agree with and flesh it out without jamming your fingers in your ears and refusing to believe it.

No statistic is perfect, including wOBA. But, for what it does, it's a really effective tool to look at how a player has done. It's also effective at predicting future performance better than just about anything else out there.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.