Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Giolito

    Share
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7238
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Giolito

    Post by alohafri on Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:20 am

    rmapasad wrote:FUCK THIS.  Farmer and D.J. were saying the other night how DULL the game is.  They said the contact hitter will return.  What real value is an Adam Dunn type?  35 Homers, 200 STRIKEOUTS, Bats .220 and walks 40 times?  FUCK THIS BULLSHIT.  Get some skill back in the game.
    FUCK 10 pitchers per game and middle infielders swinging for the fences.
    This has become so dull, STATHEADS get aroused by absolute idiocy.>>>

    Stop and think for a moment about this rant.  In every sport, players have gotten bigger, stronger, faster over the last 20-30 years.  Point guards are 6'8", quarterbacks are 6'5" and yet here are some old radio hacks yearning for the days of 5'8"  LFers who could bloop singles over the heads of the infield and calling that "real baseball."  
    Fans have dug the long ball ever since the days of Babe Ruth.  It isn't just the last 10 years - Look who's garnered the most publicity over the years- Ruth, Maris/Mantle, Aaron, McGwire, Bonds.  Now it's Stanton and Judge.  Broadcasters who were never HR hitters (classic example: Harold Reynolds) somehow think the game should reflect their talents (or lack thereof).  Nellie Fox, Luis Aparicio, and Jim Rivera ain't coming back.  Anymore than Fran Tarkerton or Bob Cousy or Marcel Dionne types will.
     Just read an article today which said that ACTUAL players are reading and tracking their Statcast data to help their performance.   They realize that stuff like mph off the bat, launch angles, speed and angles to catch FB's matter.  This younger generation is attuned to technology.   They could give two shits how Luke Appling played the games.   Baseball is not going to follow the path wished for by old school guys anymore than any other sport is. 

    Bigger, stronger, and faster doesn't necessarily equate to better...or smarter.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:50 am

    THE KARK WENT LOOKING FOR A SABR BLOG TO POST HIS EXPLANATION OF HOW 1.7 IS NOTHING MORE THAN BAD MATH


    WHAT THE KARK FOUND WAS A BUNCH OF POSTS OF POOR GIBBERISH!!!!!


    ROGER'S IMAGINARY EXPERTS THAT ADDRESS THE SUBJECT POST OBVIOUS NONSENSE.


    AND JUST WHERE DID TOM TANGO GET HIS DEGREE!!!!!!


    ROGER CLAIMED THEY ARE ALL PH'D's WHO CAREFUL VET EACH OTHERS WORK!!!!!


    IT TOOK THE KARK ABOUT 5 MINUTES TO DEBUNK 1.7 AS BAD LOGIC AND BAD MATH.


    NOT BAD FOR A MAN WITH A MATH MINOR FROM THE U OF I AT CHAMPAIGN URBANA


    BUT THAN, I BET A MATH MINOR IS MORE EDUCATION THAN MANY OF ROGER'S IMAGINARY EXPERTS.


    LIKE THE GLEEMAN CLOWN WHO INVENTED THE 1.8 CRAP AFTER DROPPING OUT OF JOURNALISM SCHOOL


    THIS 1.7 CRAP MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS CLAIMING THERE ARE 56 DIFFERENT GENDERS AND THAT THE REST OF US SHOULD ACCEPT ZE OR XE AS PRONOUNS BECAUSE SOME IMAGINARY INTELLECTUAL SAID SO
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:55 am

    alohafri wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:FUCK THIS.  Farmer and D.J. were saying the other night how DULL the game is.  They said the contact hitter will return.  What real value is an Adam Dunn type?  35 Homers, 200 STRIKEOUTS, Bats .220 and walks 40 times?  FUCK THIS BULLSHIT.  Get some skill back in the game.
    FUCK 10 pitchers per game and middle infielders swinging for the fences.
    This has become so dull, STATHEADS get aroused by absolute idiocy.>>>

    Stop and think for a moment about this rant.  In every sport, players have gotten bigger, stronger, faster over the last 20-30 years.  Point guards are 6'8", quarterbacks are 6'5" and yet here are some old radio hacks yearning for the days of 5'8"  LFers who could bloop singles over the heads of the infield and calling that "real baseball."  
    Fans have dug the long ball ever since the days of Babe Ruth.  It isn't just the last 10 years - Look who's garnered the most publicity over the years- Ruth, Maris/Mantle, Aaron, McGwire, Bonds.  Now it's Stanton and Judge.  Broadcasters who were never HR hitters (classic example: Harold Reynolds) somehow think the game should reflect their talents (or lack thereof).  Nellie Fox, Luis Aparicio, and Jim Rivera ain't coming back.  Anymore than Fran Tarkerton or Bob Cousy or Marcel Dionne types will.
     Just read an article today which said that ACTUAL players are reading and tracking their Statcast data to help their performance.   They realize that stuff like mph off the bat, launch angles, speed and angles to catch FB's matter.  This younger generation is attuned to technology.   They could give two shits how Luke Appling played the games.   Baseball is not going to follow the path wished for by old school guys anymore than any other sport is. 

    Bigger, stronger, and faster doesn't necessarily equate to better...or smarter.



    TELL THAT TO TOM TANGO!!!!!!!


    HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST YOU KNOW MORE THAN TOM TANGO!!!!!!


    TOM TANGO WROTE A BOOK PROVING HE'S SMARTER THAN THE ENTIRE BOARD COMBINED!!!!!


    YOU ARE NOTHING COMPARE TO TOM TANGO!!!!!!
    avatar
    Hawk Harrelson
    Silent Hot Dog Vendor

    Posts : 1064
    Join date : 2014-06-13

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Hawk Harrelson on Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:19 am

    I just want to be a bit smarter than MURPH!!!
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:23 pm


    And that link of yours just proves what a hack Tango is.
    *****************************
    Pete Palmer in the 70's ran regression analysis in the 70's and came to the conclusion that OBP and SLG are more or less the same. Bill James reached a similiar conclusion with his classic runs created formula which can be expressed as AB times OBP times SLG


    Let's end this shit once and for all !!!
    Roll the tape forward another 20 + years and neither Palmer nor James are saying that.   Palmer is writing the intro to Tango's book, and Bill James is saying this in 2008  
    "It certainly is true that one point of on-base percentage is more significant than one point of slugging percentage, which some of us may sometimes translate loosely as “on base percentage is more important than slugging percentage.”   But on the other hand, the standard deviation of slugging percentage is essentially twice as large as the standard deviation of on base percentage.  The number of “points” is not the same.   You could generalize the data somewhat imprecisely as “one point of on base percentage is twice as important as one point of slugging percentage, but the differences between teams in slugging percentage are twice as large as the differences in on base percentage. ." .


    This 1.7 stuff is a product of bad math and not digging into the data.  Both OBP and SLG inculde singles.  So the 1.7 is really comparing walks to extra base hits.  It defies common sense to think that a walk can be more valuable than an extra base hit.  So what does 1.8 really represent?>>
    Here is a classic illustration of the point James made.   For 500 PA's, a BB adds 2 pts. of OBP, a double adds 4.4 pts to Slug.
    Take Run Expectancies (RE) tables for 0 on base, 1 out.   The run expectancy is .29 runs for the rest of that inning.
    But a BB bumps it up to .56 an increase of .27 divided by 2 pts of OBP = .135 added RE per 1 pt added OBP
    A double bumps RE up to .70, an increase of .41 per 4.4 pts of Slug = .095 per 1 pt added Slug
    In this case, an added pt of OBP is worth 1.4 times an added pt of Slug.

    But what about bases loaded, 1 out.   Clearly a double is more valuable than a BB in that situation.  But when you parse it out on a per pt. basis, the results may surprise you.    
    In the above scenario, a BB adds 1 run to RE for 2 pts of added OBP = .50 added RE per 1 pt added OBP
    A double adds 2.12 to RE for 4.4 pts of added Slug =                          .48 added RE per 1 pt added Slug.

    So in 0 on base situations (which are 55% of all AB's)  1 pt of OBP is more significant than 1 pt of SLug.  Even in baserunners on scenarios, 1 pt of OBP is roughly the same significance of 1 pt of added OBP.  So with all baserunner/outs scenarios taken as a whole, 1 pt of OBP will in the aggregate be more significant than 1 pt of added Slug.  


    TRY LYING YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE ROGER!!!!!

    FEEL FREE TO EMAIL YOUR HERO IF YOU HAVE TO!!!!
    CHECK AND MATE ASSHOLE  >>
    If you remove the ego contest aspect of this, then it's clear that (as Bill James said) 1 pt of OBP is worth more than 1 added pt of SLug.  How much more depends on era being studied (Steroid era may have a higher multiple for OBP) as well as some of the assumptions made.  Whether 1.7 is the right # number or not IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT MATTERS ANYMORE because there are  other better ways through Linear Weighted systems like w/OBA to get at the best result.

    I haven't seen the 1.7 "debunked" anymore than a 1960 Ford Fairlane has been "debunked" as a workable mode of transportation.
    It's just that better and slicker models have come into existence since then. Same with baseball theories.  Bill James' Win Shares was all the rage until the better model of WAR came along. Doesn't mean that Win Shares didn't work.







     
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:22 pm

    Hillarious!!!!!


    You complain about my ego yet all you ever do is cite the reputation of socalled experts and put words in there mouth and take them out of context and present gibberish that explains nothing.  Nowhere above do you clearly show why OBP is 1.7 more than SLG


    The only thing 1.7 represents is that in a typical year, there will be 1.7 more extra bases on hits than on walks.  Year merry band of experts somehow got confused and think this means a walk is 70% more important than an extra base hit.  They think this because they didn't have the brains to realize you don't put OBP and SLG in the same regression formula because both contain singles meaning you now have two nonindependent variables in the equation.  And how do you defend it.  By lying about how smart they are and would never make such an error.  But I've just googled it and saw several of these hacks doing it.  So whats your new lie?


    This notion of 1 point of OBP is more valuable than 1 point of SLG is just plain retarded.  I hit a single up the middle.  Just how the hell is that more important for OBP than SLG when its the same damn hit.  


    Just like I said, meanigless mathematical masterbation
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:31 pm

    So in 0 on base situations (which are 55% of all AB's)  1 pt of OBP is more significant than 1 pt of SLug.


    *****************************************


    Clearly one of the dumbest things ever written.  Apparently Roger doesn't have the brains to figure out any kind of hit increases both OBP and SLG.  But according to this stupid little theory, I guess a hitter should go to the plate looking for a walk and only try to get a hit as a last resort.


    Once again, Roger proves he cannot think on his own.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:35 pm

    I haven't seen the 1.7 "debunked"


    ****************************


    Because you are blind and stupid


    I've been debunking it here for 10 years.  Maybe I should summit an article to the SABR Research Journal.  However, I will need someone that teaches grammar for a living to edit out all the Tony Montana language.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:42 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Hillarious!!!!!


    You complain about my ego yet all you ever do is cite the reputation of socalled experts and put words in there mouth and take them out of context and present gibberish that explains nothing.  Nowhere above do you clearly show why OBP is 1.7 more than SLG


    The only thing 1.7 represents is that in a typical year, there will be 1.7 more extra bases on hits than on walks.  Year merry band of experts somehow got confused and think this means a walk is 70% more important than an extra base hit.  They think this because they didn't have the brains to realize you don't put OBP and SLG in the same regression formula because both contain singles meaning you now have two nonindependent variables in the equation.  And how do you defend it.  By lying about how smart they are and would never make such an error.  But I've just googled it and saw several of these hacks doing it.  So whats your new lie?


    This notion of 1 point of OBP is more valuable than 1 point of SLG is just plain retarded.  I hit a single up the middle.  Just how the hell is that more important for OBP than SLG when its the same damn hit.  


    Just like I said, meanigless mathematical masturbation

    I explained it very logically and as usual all you come back with is highly charged opinions.  With 0 on base, unquestionably and with absolute certainty of the sun rising in the East, 1 pt. of OBP is worth more than 1 pt of Slug.   You lose that argument 100 %
    With runners on base, it depends on the situation.  There are dozens of iterations of that, and in several of them, 1 pt of Slug is worth more.
    But it's useless to try to discover the truth with you because all you want to do is rant away with UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS. So rant away with no facts, no logic.  That's the way you roll.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:48 pm

    ROGER LIES AGAIN!!!!!!


    Just googled Bill James on the subject.  here's the list line


    therefore, the net impact is essentially the same.” 



    SAME!!!! NOT 70% GREATER YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT.


    Why is it everytime I go to verify the crap you post I catch you lying and giving false information


    Here's the the link as well as the article.


    LET'S SEE YOU LIE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE


    PS, JAMES IS STILL USING THE BASIC RUNS CREATED FORMULA.  SO MUCH FOR YOUR LIE THAT IT WAS OUTDATED AND OBSOLETE


    https://www.billjamesonline.com/article872/




    OBA vs. Slg
    By Bill James
    November 12, 2008
    There is a heated argument some people I know need resolved - OBP vs SLG.  It has be belief of many that OBP is more important for a team scoring runs than SLG.  If you take the last 5 years worth of data, SLG (r-squared of 77) correlates better to runs a team scores than OBP (r-qsquared of 73).  Has there been a shift towards power being more important or is OBP still king?  We know that other values like OPS+ and wOBP take both of these measures into account, but we want to answer the debate on SLG vs. OBP.
    --Jeff in “Hey, Bill”

    November 10, 2008
    [size]
    I took the batting records for all major league teams since the last strike, giving us 13 years of data (1996-2008).   The first thing I did was to test the basic Runs Created formula
    (H + W) * TB/ (AB + W) = runs
    I ran that for each team and each year, to see whether there was some sort of shift in offense.   For those 13 years, the formula was more accurate in 2008 than in any other season.   It's second-best year (among the 13) was 2007, it's third-best was 2006.
    So the basic runs created formula, for some reason, has been working better in the last few seasons than it has in years. . .not that it was ever bad, but. . the standard errors have been going down.   Here’s the 2008 data:
    [/size]
    YEARLgTeam
    Avg
    OBA
    Slg
    Runs
    RC
    Error
    2008
    ALTexas
    .283
    .354
    .462
    901
    927
    26
    2008
    ALBoston
    .280
    .358
    .447
    845
    887
    42
    2008
    ALMinnesota
    .279
    .340
    .408
    829
    784
    45
    2008
    ALDetroit
    .271
    .340
    .444
    821
    847
    26
    2006
    ALChicago
    .263
    .320
    .448
    811
    815
    4
    2008
    ALCleveland
    .262
    .339
    .424
    805
    776
    29
    2008
    ALNew York
    .271
    .342
    .427
    789
    798
    9
    2008
    ALBaltimore
    .267
    .333
    .429
    782
    790
    8
    2008
    ALTampa Bay
    .260
    .340
    .422
    774
    785
    11
    2008
    ALLos Angeles
    .268
    .330
    .413
    765
    747
    18
    2008
    ALToronto
    .264
    .331
    .399
    714
    720
    6
    2008
    ALKansas City
    .269
    .320
    .397
    691
    705
    14
    2008
    ALSeattle
    .265
    .318
    .389
    671
    694
    23
    2008
    ALOakland
    .242
    .318
    .369
    646
    631
    15
    2008
    NLChicago
    .278
    .354
    .443
    855
    870
    15
    2008
    NLPhiladelphia
    .255
    .332
    .438
    799
    789
    10
    2008
    NLNew York
    .266
    .340
    .420
    799
    798
    1
    2008
    NLSt. Louis
    .281
    .350
    .433
    779
    850
    71
    2008
    NLFlorida
    .254
    .326
    .433
    770
    764
    6
    2008
    NLAtlanta
    .270
    .345
    .408
    753
    783
    30
    2008
    NLMilwaukee
    .253
    .325
    .431
    750
    764
    14
    2008
    NLColorado
    .263
    .336
    .415
    747
    765
    18
    2008
    NLPittsburgh
    .258
    .320
    .403
    735
    717
    18
    2008
    NLArizona
    .251
    .327
    .415
    720
    727
    7
    2008
    NLHouston
    .263
    .323
    .415
    712
    721
    9
    2008
    NLCincinnati
    .247
    .321
    .408
    704
    698
    6
    2008
    NLLos Angeles
    .264
    .333
    .399
    700
    725
    25
    2008
    NLWashington
    .251
    .323
    .373
    641
    649
    8
    2008
    NLSan Francisco
    .262
    .321
    .385
    640
    673
    33
    2008
    NLSan Diego
    .250
    .317
    .390
    637
    680
    43
    [size]
    I suspect that the essence of this problem is that the phrase “more important than” is imprecise, and is capable of different interpretations when you put your hands on the data.   It certainly is true that one point of on-base percentage is more significant than one point of slugging percentage, which some of us may sometimes translate loosely as “on base percentage is more important than slugging percentage.”   But on the other hand, the standard deviation of slugging percentage is essentially twice as large as the standard deviation of on base percentage.  The number of “points” is not the same.   You could generalize the data somewhat imprecisely as “one point of on base percentage is twice as important as one point of slugging percentage, but the differences between teams in slugging percentage are twice as large as the differences in on base percentage. . .therefore, the net impact is essentially the same.”  [/size]
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:53 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:Hillarious!!!!!


    You complain about my ego yet all you ever do is cite the reputation of socalled experts and put words in there mouth and take them out of context and present gibberish that explains nothing.  Nowhere above do you clearly show why OBP is 1.7 more than SLG


    The only thing 1.7 represents is that in a typical year, there will be 1.7 more extra bases on hits than on walks.  Year merry band of experts somehow got confused and think this means a walk is 70% more important than an extra base hit.  They think this because they didn't have the brains to realize you don't put OBP and SLG in the same regression formula because both contain singles meaning you now have two nonindependent variables in the equation.  And how do you defend it.  By lying about how smart they are and would never make such an error.  But I've just googled it and saw several of these hacks doing it.  So whats your new lie?


    This notion of 1 point of OBP is more valuable than 1 point of SLG is just plain retarded.  I hit a single up the middle.  Just how the hell is that more important for OBP than SLG when its the same damn hit.  


    Just like I said, meanigless mathematical masturbation

    I explained it very logically and as usual all you come back with is highly charged opinions.  With 0 on base, unquestionably and with absolute certainty of the sun rising in the East, 1 pt. of OBP is worth more than 1 pt of Slug.   You lose that argument 100 %

    BULLSHIT!!!!

    With runners on base, it depends on the situation.  There are dozens of iterations of that, and in several of them, 1 pt of Slug is worth more.
    But it's useless to try to discover the truth with you

    FUCK YOU, YOUR THE BIGGEST LIAR ON THIS BOARD

    because all you want to do is rant away with UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS. So rant away with no facts, no logic.  That's the way you roll.


    FUCK YOU AGAIN LIAR.

    I JUST PROVED WHAT 1.7 IS.  YOUR THE BLIND ASSHOLE REFUSING TO SEE WHAT IS AS PLAIN AS DAY

    YOU WANT NO LOGIC, RE READ ALL YOUR GIBBERISH.  1 POINT OF OBP V 1 POINT OF SLG IS WHAT LACKS LOGIC!!!!!

    TELL ME EINSTEIN, WHEN MIKE TROUT IS AT THE PLATE, IS HE LOOKING FOR OBP OR SLG?!?!?!?!?

    YOUR THE ONLY ONE TOO STUPID NOT TO SEE HOW RETARDED THE QUESTION IS
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:16 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:OBA vs. Slg
    By Bill James
    November 12, 2008
    There is a heated argument some people I know need resolved - OBP vs SLG.  It has be belief of many that OBP is more important for a team scoring runs than SLG.  If you take the last 5 years worth of data, SLG (r-squared of 77) correlates better to runs a team scores than OBP (r-qsquared of 73).  Has there been a shift towards power being more important or is OBP still king?  We know that other values like OPS+ and wOBP take both of these measures into account, but we want to answer the debate on SLG vs. OBP.


    I took the batting records for all major league teams since the last strike, giving us 13 years of data (1996-2008).   The first thing I did was to test the basic Runs Created formula
    (H + W) * TB/ (AB + W) = runs
    I ran that for each team and each year, to see whether there was some sort of shift in offense.   For those 13 years, the formula was more accurate in 2008 than in any other season.   It's second-best year (among the 13) was 2007, it's third-best was 2006.
    So the basic runs created formula, for some reason, has been working better in the last few seasons than it has in years. . .not that it was ever bad, but. . the standard errors have been going down.   Here’s the 2008 data:
    t that the essence of this problem is that the phrase “more important than” is imprecise, and is capable of different interpretations when you put your hands on the data.   It certainly is true that one point of on-base percentage is more significant than one point of slugging percentage, which some of us may sometimes translate loosely as “on base percentage is more important than slugging percentage.”   But on the other hand, the standard deviation of slugging percentage is essentially twice as large as the standard deviation of on base percentage.  The number of “points” is not the same.   You could generalize the data somewhat imprecisely as “one point of on base percentage is twice as important as one point of slugging percentage, but the differences between teams in slugging percentage are twice as large as the differences in on base percentage. . .therefore, the net impact is essentially the same.”  


    Gee, if you were as smart as you claim to be, you would grasp that what James was saying. Namely that given the differences in STDEV between OBP and Slug, it is natural that 1 pt OBP is more significant than 1 pt of Slugging, and that does NOT mean that a BB is more valuable or as valuable as a hit.
    That was never my position.
    Figure it out.    A double is more valuable than a BB of course but on a per pt. basis it's not as valuable as Slug Pct.  James just explained it to you and you still haven't been able to figure it out !!!!
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:20 pm

    Palmer is writing the intro to Tango's book


    **********************************


    AND YOU CLAIM I JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS AND PUT WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTH?!?!?!?!?


    JUST BECAUSE PALMER IS WRITING AN INTRO DOESN'T MEAN HE IS REFUTING THE WORK HE DID IN THE CLASSIC "HIDDEN GAME OF BASEBALL"


    AND PART OF THAT WORK SHOWED OBP WAS SLIGHLTY MORE VALUABLE THAN SLG.  MEANING ALMOST THE SAME.  CERTAINLY NOT 70%


    ANOTHER ROGER LIE CORRECTED
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:31 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:OBA vs. Slg
    By Bill James
    November 12, 2008
    There is a heated argument some people I know need resolved - OBP vs SLG.  It has be belief of many that OBP is more important for a team scoring runs than SLG.  If you take the last 5 years worth of data, SLG (r-squared of 77) correlates better to runs a team scores than OBP (r-qsquared of 73).  Has there been a shift towards power being more important or is OBP still king?  We know that other values like OPS+ and wOBP take both of these measures into account, but we want to answer the debate on SLG vs. OBP.


    I took the batting records for all major league teams since the last strike, giving us 13 years of data (1996-2008).   The first thing I did was to test the basic Runs Created formula
    (H + W) * TB/ (AB + W) = runs
    I ran that for each team and each year, to see whether there was some sort of shift in offense.   For those 13 years, the formula was more accurate in 2008 than in any other season.   It's second-best year (among the 13) was 2007, it's third-best was 2006.
    So the basic runs created formula, for some reason, has been working better in the last few seasons than it has in years. . .not that it was ever bad, but. . the standard errors have been going down.   Here’s the 2008 data:
    t that the essence of this problem is that the phrase “more important than” is imprecise, and is capable of different interpretations when you put your hands on the data.   It certainly is true that one point of on-base percentage is more significant than one point of slugging percentage, which some of us may sometimes translate loosely as “on base percentage is more important than slugging percentage.”   But on the other hand, the standard deviation of slugging percentage is essentially twice as large as the standard deviation of on base percentage.  The number of “points” is not the same.   You could generalize the data somewhat imprecisely as “one point of on base percentage is twice as important as one point of slugging percentage, but the differences between teams in slugging percentage are twice as large as the differences in on base percentage. . .therefore, the net impact is essentially the same.”  


    Gee, if you were as smart as you claim to be, you would grasp that what James was saying. Namely that given the differences in STDEV between OBP and Slug, it is natural that 1 pt OBP is more significant than 1 pt of Slugging, and that does NOT mean that a BB is more valuable or as valuable as a hit.
    That was never my position.
    Figure it out.    A double is more valuable than a BB of course but on a per pt. basis it's not as valuable as Slug Pct.  James just explained it to you and you still haven't been able to figure it out !!!!


    LEARN HOW TO READ

    JAMES CONCLUDES THAT THE IMPACT IS THE SAME

    AND AGAIN, HOW THE HELL DO I GET A POINT OF SLG WITHOUT GETTING A POINT OF OBP?!?!?!?

    IT IS YOU THAT ISN'T THINKING
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:39 pm

    A double is more valuable than a BB of course but on a per pt. basis it's not as valuable as Slug Pct.  James just explained it to you and you still haven't been able to figure it out !!!!


    ***************************************


    JUST ARE STUPID ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?


    HOW THE HELL CAN A WALK BE MORE VALUABLE THAN A DOUBLE ON A PER POINT BASIS?!?!?!?


    THIS MAKE ZERO SENSE.


    BOTTOM OF THE NINTH.  RUNNER ON FIRST.  TIE GAME, TWO OUTS.  A DOUBLE WINS THE GAME.  BUT A WALK GIVES HIM MORE POINTS.  YEAH,THAT MAKES SENSE.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:10 pm

    JUST ARE STUPID ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?

    HOW THE HELL CAN A WALK BE MORE VALUABLE THAN A DOUBLE ON A PER POINT BASIS?!?!?!?

    SIMPLE if you would just get down off your ego high horse long enough to logic a problem through rather than ranting and raving, or looking for some flimsy confirmations of your preconceived opinions.
    Let's take your example.  2 outs runner on 1st.  Say the batter is new and has  only 10 PA's, with 1 BB, 2 singles and 1 double.  So his line is .333/.400/.444.
    He hits a double and the runner scores.   His line now changes to .400/.454/.600 meaning that it took 54 points of OBP but 156 points of Slug to gain those 5 bases (2 batter, 3 runner).  54 pts OBP/ 5 bases gained = 11 pts OBP per base gained
    156 points of Slug/ 5 bases gained = 31 pts Slug per base gained.  Here it's nearly 3 times the pts of Slug to 1 pt of OBP increase per base gained.
    But that ratio varies from situation to situation.  If the guy hits a single his line goes to  .400/.454/.500 with a 54 pt increase in OBP and 56 pt. increase in Slug.  So here 1 pt of OBP produces same result as 1.02 pts of Slug -nearly equal.
    Tango used the linear-weighted value of all the different scenarios and concluded because of the mathematical nuances (as James explained) it takes 1.7 pts. of Slug gain in the aggregate to get the equivalent result of 1 pt of OBP gain.  THAT DOESN"T MEAN OBP IS MORE VALUABLE THAN SLUG OR WALKS ARE BETTER THAN DOUBLES.   Geesh - stop your endless streams of distortions.  

    BOTTOM OF THE NINTH.  RUNNER ON FIRST.  TIE GAME, TWO OUTS.  A DOUBLE WINS THE GAME.  BUT A WALK GIVES HIM MORE POINTS.  YEAH,THAT MAKES SENSE.>>
    This shows how dumb you can get when you're off on an ego tangent and your brain totally disengages.  You know that the Linear Weighted values of each event (BB, single, HR, etc) are independent of game score situations.  Bonus Slug or Run Expectancy or Bases Gained points are not awarded for driving in the game winning run. 
    It's amazing that you call any other poster a "liar" when it is you that never looks for the truth. You are only interested in pumping up your problematic ego in whatever way you can even if it means distorting others' points, ignoring facts, and claiming yourself to know more about a subject that you've looked at for an hour or two than a guy who's studied it for years.   Your warped ego is so distorted that you don't even try to discover why an expert arrived at his opinion. You just insult, wrongly, inaccurately so you can keep making yourself a legend in your own mind.

    I see where Tango and others could have arrived at their conclusions on this issue because I've worked the numbers myself.  That you can't see or are not interested in their work speaks about YOU not them.  Newsflash:  Tango is BUSHELS smarter than you - fucking BUSHELS.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:14 pm

    There is a heated argument some people I know need resolved - OBP vs SLG.  It has be belief of many that OBP is more important for a team scoring runs than SLG.  If you take the last 5 years worth of data, SLG (r-squared of 77) correlates better to runs a team scores than OBP (r-qsquared of 73).  Has there been a shift towards power being more important or is OBP still king?  We know that other values like OPS+ and wOBP take both of these measures into account, but we want to answer the debate on SLG vs. OBP.

    --Jeff in “Hey, Bill” >>
    These comments were not made by James but apparently was one of his readers who asked this question.   This was what James said
    It certainly is true that one point of on-base percentage is more significant than one point of slugging percentage, which some of us may sometimes translate loosely as “on base percentage is more important than slugging percentage.”   But on the other hand, the standard deviation of slugging percentage is essentially twice as large as the standard deviation of on base percentage.  The number of “points” is not the same.

    While James also said his old RC formula was "working better lately" that indicates in the late 1990's/ early 2000's it wasn't working at its best. That was the period when the 1.8 * OBP came into vogue and maybe part of the impetus was that old RC wasn't as precise as people liked.  We know today that w/OBA (oops, another Tango invention) has become the gold standard.  
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:47 pm

    rmapasad wrote:JUST ARE STUPID ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?

    HOW THE HELL CAN A WALK BE MORE VALUABLE THAN A DOUBLE ON A PER POINT BASIS?!?!?!?

    SIMPLE if you would just get down off your ego high horse long enough to logic a problem through rather than ranting and raving, or looking for some flimsy confirmations of your preconceived opinions.
    Let's take your example.  2 outs runner on 1st.  Say the batter is new and has  only 10 PA's, with 1 BB, 2 singles and 1 double.  So his line is .333/.400/.444.
    He hits a double and the runner scores.   His line now changes to .400/.454/.600 meaning that it took 54 points of OBP but 156 points of Slug to gain those 5 bases (2 batter, 3 runner).  54 pts OBP/ 5 bases gained = 11 pts OBP per base gained
    156 points of Slug/ 5 bases gained = 31 pts Slug per base gained.  Here it's nearly 3 times the pts of Slug to 1 pt of OBP increase per base gained.

    BUT ITS THE SAME DAMN DOUBLE!!!!!!!!!

    But that ratio varies from situation to situation.  If the guy hits a single his line goes to  .400/.454/.500 with a 54 pt increase in OBP and 56 pt. increase in Slug.  So here 1 pt of OBP produces same result as 1.02 pts of Slug -nearly equal.

    SO NOW SINGLES ARE BETTER THAN DOUBLES!!!!!  LMAO!!!!

    Tango used the linear-weighted value of all the different scenarios and concluded because of the mathematical nuances (as James explained) it takes 1.7 pts. of Slug gain in the aggregate to get the equivalent result of 1 pt of OBP gain.  THAT DOESN"T MEAN OBP IS MORE VALUABLE THAN SLUG OR WALKS ARE BETTER THAN DOUBLES.   Geesh - stop your endless streams of distortions.  

    ITS NOT A DISTORTION TO POINT OUT THAT A LINEAR REGRESSION REQUIRES INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND OBP & SLG ARE CLEARLY NOT INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.  THEREFORE, USING REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS WHERE OBP & SLG ARE IN THE SAME REGRESSION WILL PRODUCE INCORRECT COEFFICIENTS BECAUSE OF MULTICOLINEARITY!!!!!   IF ANYBODY HAS DISTORTED THIS IT'S YOU WITH YOU OUT RIGHT LIES ABOUT HOW THIS ISN'T HAPPENING OR IT CAN BE ADJUST FOR.

    BOTTOM OF THE NINTH.  RUNNER ON FIRST.  TIE GAME, TWO OUTS.  A DOUBLE WINS THE GAME.  BUT A WALK GIVES HIM MORE POINTS.  YEAH,THAT MAKES SENSE.>>
    This shows how dumb you can get when you're off on an ego tangent and your brain totally disengages.  You know that the Linear Weighted values of each event (BB, single, HR, etc) are independent of game score situations.  Bonus Slug or Run Expectancy or Bases Gained points are not awarded for driving in the game winning run. 
    It's amazing that you call any other poster a "liar" when it is you that never looks for the truth.

    BULLSHIT!!!!!  I CALL YOU A LIAR BECAUSE EVERYTHING I GO TO VERIFY YOU CRAP I FIND THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY.  I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT MATH YOU SEE THAT YOU CLEARLY MAKE SHIT UP.  

    You are only interested in pumping up your problematic ego in whatever way you can even if it means distorting others' points, ignoring facts, and claiming yourself to know more about a subject that you've looked at for an hour or two than a guy who's studied it for years.   Your warped ego is so distorted that you don't even try to discover why an expert arrived at his opinion. You just insult, wrongly, inaccurately so you can keep making yourself a legend in your own mind.


    I see where Tango and others could have arrived at their conclusions on this issue because I've worked the numbers myself.  That you can't see or are not interested in their work speaks about YOU not them.  Newsflash:  Tango is BUSHELS smarter than you - fucking BUSHELS.


    FUCK YOU!!!!  I'M NOT ARGUING WITH TANGO.  I AM ARGUING WITH YOU SO QUIT HIDING BEHIND HIS SKIRT.  YOU CAN SEE.  LMAO!!!!!  WELL SO CAN I AND I ALSO WORK WITH NUMBERS AND WHEN I DUG INTO THE DATA NOT ONLY DID I FIND THE MULTICOLINEARITY, I WAS ABLE TO RECREATE THE 1.7.  QUITE A COINCIDENCE ISN'T.  YOUR RESPONDS, IGNORE IT!!!!!  AND WHAT KIND OF CHILDISH ARGUMENT IS TANGO IS SMARTER THAN YOU?!?!?!?!?


    MAYBE YOU SHOULD APPLY COMMON SENSE AND LEARN SOME SIMPLE MATH


    DISOTRTING POINT AND IGNORING FACTS IS WHAT YOU DO.  WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE A LIAR.  AND IF ANYBODY IS ARROGANT ITS YOU.  UNABLE TO ADMIT ANY MISTAKE NO MATTER HOW OBVIOUS.  NEVER CONCEDE ANY POINT NO MATTER HOW SMALL.  JUST MAKE SHIT UP EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU WROTE IN THE PAST.  RUN OFF ON TANGENTS AND ACT LIKE YOU JUST MADE A POINT.  AND LETS NEVER FORGET THAT IT IS YOU THAT COMES UP WITH CRACK THEORIES TO INFLATE YOUR EGO.  IT WAS YOU THAT CAME UP WITH OBP IS 70% MORE VALUABLE THAN SLG.  IT WAS YOU THAT CAME UP WITH LUCKY BASE HITS.  IT WAS YOU THAT DOUBLED AND TRIPLED AND QUADRUPLED DOWN ON STUPIDITY WHEN THESE STUPID IDEAS WHERE LAUGHED OFF THE BOARD


    MAYBE YOU SHOULD EMAIL YOUR HERO SOME OF MY CLEANER POSTS AND MAYBE HE COULD EXPLAIN IT.  BECAUSE YOU SOUND LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:58 pm

    While James also said his old RC formula was "working better lately" that indicates in the late 1990's/ early 2000's it wasn't working at its best. That was the period when the 1.8 * OBP came into vogue and maybe part of the impetus was that old RC wasn't as precise as people liked.  We know today that w/OBA (oops, another Tango invention) has become the gold standard.  


    ***********************


    SPARE ME!!!!!!!


    Runs Created describes a mathematical relationship.  Its not a regression that changes every year


    1.8 in vogue.   LMAO!!!!!!


    I have shown over and over and over again that 1.8 was bullshit.


    Meanwhile you lie your ass off


    1.8 was never in vogue since serious analysts would never used OBP and SLG in the same regression!!!!!!!!


    Find me a formula that does and I will show you multicolinearity!!!!!!


    And you want to talk arrogance.  10 years you have been lying about this subject.  Have you ever once look up the definition?!?!?!?  Instead you out right lie about how these clowns are either way to smart to make such a mistake or are so smart they knew how to adjust for it.  Never ever providing proof.  We are just suppose to believe your lies that it is happening.  Well I know enough math to know when somebody is making shit up  


    BTW, it does take bushels of smarts to run a linear regression!!!!!
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7238
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Giolito

    Post by alohafri on Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:30 am

    You two statheads are giving me a migraineTwisted Evil
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:39 am

    THAT DOESN"T MEAN OBP IS MORE VALUABLE THAN SLUG OR WALKS ARE BETTER THAN DOUBLES.   Geesh - stop your endless streams of distortions.  


    *************************


    From Fangraphs


    https://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/woba/



    wOBA is based on a simple concept: Not all hits are created equal. Batting average assumes that they are. On-base percentage does too, but does one better by including other ways of reaching base such as walking or being hit by a pitch. Slugging percentage weights hits, but not accurately (Is a double worth twice as much as a single? In short, no) and again ignores other ways of reaching base. On-base plus slugging (OPS) does attempt to combine the different aspects of hitting into one metric, but it assumes that one percentage point of SLG is the same as that of OBP. In reality, a handy estimate is that OBP is around twice as valuable than SLG (the exact ratio is x1.8). In short, OPS is asking the right question, but we can arrive at a more accurate number quite easily.


    Can someone please explain how the KARK distorted the bolded red portion?!?!?


    Also, if OBP is 1.8 SLG, then why does Bill James basic runs created formula which can be rewritten as AB times OBP times SLG so accurate?  I ran this formula and the 5 White Sox division winners, 1983,1993,2000,2005,2008 and the different between estimated and actual was about 2%.


    It doesn't take a CPA with a 135 IQ to figure out that 98% accuracy would be impossible if there truly was an 80% different between OBP and SLG.


    PS, somebody give Kevin an asipirin
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7497
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:57 am

    More spanking.
    Less number crunching.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2093
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:28 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:More spanking.
    Less number crunching.



    If you need something to spank to, try this


    Thurs 3/29 Royals home open against our White sox
    Mon 4/2 Brewers home open against the Cards
    Thur 4/5 OUR WHITE SOX home open against the Tigers
    Fri 4/6 the pesky Tribe home opens agaiint the Royals
    Mon 4/9 Cubs home Opener


    5 HOME OPENER IN 10 DAYS!!!!!!


    with any luck, a well timed rain out might get you another home opener on friday 3/30 or tuesday 4/3


    The KARK would love to do this road trip, but for some strange reason, I'm having trouble finding friends
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:29 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:THAT DOESN"T MEAN OBP IS MORE VALUABLE THAN SLUG OR WALKS ARE BETTER THAN DOUBLES.   Geesh - stop your endless streams of distortions.  


    *************************


    From Fangraphs


    https://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/woba/



    wOBA is based on a simple concept: Not all hits are created equal. Batting average assumes that they are. On-base percentage does too, but does one better by including other ways of reaching base such as walking or being hit by a pitch. Slugging percentage weights hits, but not accurately (Is a double worth twice as much as a single? In short, no) and again ignores other ways of reaching base. On-base plus slugging (OPS) does attempt to combine the different aspects of hitting into one metric, but it assumes that one percentage point of SLG is the same as that of OBP. In reality, a handy estimate is that OBP is around twice as valuable than SLG (the exact ratio is x1.8). In short, OPS is asking the right question, but we can arrive at a more accurate number quite easily.


    Can someone please explain how the KARK distorted the bolded red portion?!?!?


    Also, if OBP is 1.8 SLG, then why does Bill James basic runs created formula which can be rewritten as AB times OBP times SLG so accurate?  I ran this formula and the 5 White Sox division winners, 1983,1993,2000,2005,2008 and the different between estimated and actual was about 2%.


    It doesn't take a CPA with a 135 IQ to figure out that 98% accuracy would be impossible if there truly was an 80% different between OBP and SLG.


    PS, somebody give Kevin an asipirin


    Yes, ALL these different calculations work basically.  Depending on the scoring era or season, some work better than others.  Oddly enough, in the low-scoring era of the 1960's, OBP*1.8 + Slug produced the best correlation to run-scoring of any system - w/ OBA, straight OPS, your James formula.
    But the differences were small.   I ran it again on 2017,which is both the highest HR and highest K season of any in history.  All four systems produced virtually the same level of correlation to Runs Scored.  Meaning that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 1.8 * OPS nor was there anything that wrong with the James formula or even straight OPS.  Whatever refinements the new-fangled 1.8 * OBP or w/OBA provided were not huge, major improvements.  
    BTW, let me address this multicolinearity stuff once and for all.  There was a reason that no researcher of any substance raised that objection to these studies.  The way they were done "interrelated variables" were not a factor. Had you read those studies you would have seen why.  You add a BB which only changes OBP but not Slug.  Conversely you change a single to a double or HR and that only changes Slug but not OBP.  But even when OBP and SLug are intertwined, as happens with all hits, you can still separate out the Slug component.
    The 1.8 stuff was a big tempest in a teapot, as it added something to the party but not a whole lot.  However the bigger tempest came in this folder by someone who continues to spout his professional credentials and IQ numbers in some ego-flexing exercise to prove that he knows more than very smart guys who studied this for several years.  Bottom line: he doesn't.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2574
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Giolito

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:08 pm

    Here is the problem that all these "run-predicting" systems have. They can't forecast how events are sequenced, which matters a whole lot.  
    Inning 1:   Fly out - Triple - BB - BB - K - Fly out   =    0 runs with .250 BA/.500 OBP/.750 Slug
    Inning 2:   K - BB - BB - Triple -Sac Fly Out - Fly out = 3 runs with .250 BA/.500 OBP/.750 Slug 

    Sponsored content

    Re: Giolito

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:46 pm