Nomadsfest Sox Fans

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


    SO LONG RYMIER

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:41 am

     had Sox examined the history of tall sluggers in their early 30's


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


    FRANK HOWARD LOOKED PRETTY DAMN GOOD FROM AGES 31-34!!!!


    SAME AGE ADAM DUNN WAS WITH THE WHITE SOX


    AGAIN YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.  YOU LAUGHED WHEN I CLAIMED ADAM EATON WAS TOO SHORT.  NOW YOU CLAIM ADAM DUNN WAS JUST TOO TALL TO STAY GOOD


    I GUESS DARREL STRAWBERRY'S PROBLEM WAS TOO MANY INCHES, NOT TOO MANY LINES


    CAN'T WAIT TO WATCH AVISAIL GARCIA HIT 350 NEXT YEAR.  GIVEN HIS TOOLS AND WORK ETHIC AND TURNING THE MAGICAL AGE 27 ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK HE'D GO BACK TO THE CLOWN THAT BATTED 240 WITH A DOZEN HOMERS


    BUT I'M SURE YOU AND TOM TANGO WILL CHERRY PICK SOME OBSCURE RATION THAT PROVES ITS A FOR GONE CONCLUSION AND A GM WOULD HAVE TRADED HIM TO THE FIRST GM NAPPING AT THE BIBITY BOBITY BABIP.  NOT TOO MENTION THAT AT 6'4" HE'S TOO TALL TO STAY THIS GOOD FOR VERY LONG
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:49 am

    FRANK THOMAS


    1 INCH SHORTER THAN ADAM DUNN


    PLAYS UNTIL 40!!!!!!!


    I GUESS THAT MEANS WIN NOW MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH


    LMAO!!!!!!


    ONE MORE INCH MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD!!!!!


    WHERE IS BLONDY TO CONFIRM?!?!?!!??


    LOL
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7401
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:09 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:FRANK THOMAS


    1 INCH SHORTER THAN ADAM DUNN


    PLAYS UNTIL 40!!!!!!!


    I GUESS THAT MEANS WIN NOW MISSED IT BY THAT MUCH


    LMAO!!!!!!


    ONE MORE INCH MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD!!!!!


    WHERE IS BLONDY TO CONFIRM?!?!?!!??


    LOL

    Frank may have, just MAY have, benefited from a slight talent advantage.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:26 am

    OR MAYBE BABIP IS BULLSHIT!!!!!!


    OR MAYBE ROGER JUST SUCKS AT MATH


    I DID A QUICK ANALYSIS OF DUNN'S CAREER FROM 2004-2010


    THERE IS A VERY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN INCREASING K RATE AND THE BABIP-AVG DIFFERENTIAL


    SO ITS NOT LUCKY GROUNDBALLS THAT WERE DRIVING DUNN'S BABIP, IT WAS HIS STRIKEOUTS!!!!


    JUST LOOKING AT THE BABIP FORMULA AND YOU CAN TELL ALOT OF WHAT THE HACKS WHERE CALLING LUCK WAS CLEARLY JUST A FUNCTION OF THE MATH.


    JUST LIKE WITH THE 1.8 BULLSHIT.  A BUNCH OF HACKS DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN A PROPER REGRESSION, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CLOWNS GOT PUBLISHED, ROGER CONSIDERS THEM EINSTEIN.  THEN LIES HIS ASS OFF ABOUT HOW ALL THIS CRAP IS SUBJECT TO RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AND THE TOUGHEST STANDARDS OF RESEARCH


    LMAO


    TRUTH IS, NOBODY WON A DAMN THING WITH 1.8  AND NO GM WOULD LET SOMETHING AS STUPID AS BABIP CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT A PLAYER.


    PS, STILL WAITING ON THE EXPLANATION ON HOW A SINGLE CAN BE WORTH 1.8 TIMES ITSELF CONSIDERING A SINGLE INCREASE OBP AND SLG BY ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7401
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 51
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Soxillinirob on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:31 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:I DID A QUICK ANALYSIS OF DUNN'S CAREER FROM 2004-2010

    No thanks.  Shouldn't we be trying to forget this part of history?
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7171
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by alohafri on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:36 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:I DID A QUICK ANALYSIS OF DUNN'S CAREER FROM 2004-2010

    No thanks.  Shouldn't we be trying to forget this part of history?

    It may have been the quickest analysis in the history of baseball (other than the analysis on the career of David Clyde).
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:38 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:OR MAYBE BABIP IS BULLSHIT!!!!!!
    THERE IS A VERY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN INCREASING K RATE AND THE BABIP-AVG DIFFERENTIAL.....
    Dunn's BABIP-Avg increased a lot with the Sox his first year in 2011 along with his K rate.  But his BABIP-BA differential was about 42-47 pts in 2012-2013 (same as his 
    pre-Sox days)  even though his K rate was much higher on the Sox.
    If a guy is whiffing at a lot of pitches, maybe he's also making poorer contacts (i.e, more outs) on the ones he hits. But the opposite could also be true. A guy who has a big swing may whiff a lot but when he connects the ball is hit hard.  That applies to Miguel Cabrera who's had high BABIP.


    JUST LOOKING AT THE BABIP FORMULA AND YOU CAN TELL ALOT OF WHAT THE HACKS WHERE CALLING LUCK WAS CLEARLY JUST A FUNCTION OF THE MATH.
    High K's lower Bat Avg. but not sure what kind of correlation K's and BABIP have.  

    JUST LIKE WITH THE 1.8 BULLSHIT.  A BUNCH OF HACKS DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN A PROPER REGRESSION, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CLOWNS GOT PUBLISHED, ROGER CONSIDERS THEM EINSTEIN.  THEN LIES HIS ASS OFF ABOUT HOW ALL THIS CRAP IS SUBJECT TO RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AND THE TOUGHEST STANDARDS OF RESEARCH..
    Talk about bullshit.  Multicolinearity was bypassed in the way these studies were done but go on believing that you are smarter than these other guys. Your delusions
    are both irritating and just plain stupid. Why don't you have the balls to go onto one of those sabermetric sites and challenge these guys with your "findings" ?




    IS, NOBODY WON A DAMN THING WITH 1.8  AND NO GM WOULD LET SOMETHING AS STUPID AS BABIP CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT A PLAYER.PS, STILL WAITING ON THE EXPLANATION ON HOW A SINGLE CAN BE WORTH 1.8 TIMES ITSELF CONSIDERING A SINGLE INCREASE OBP AND SLG BY ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT
    Oakland seems to have done OK in the early 2000's with an Assistant GM who used this formula.  Three straight AL West championships. 
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:46 am

    I READ MONEYBALL

    IT WAS A LOT MORE THAN THIS 1.8 BULLSHIT

    AND YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OF A A SINGLE CAN BE 1.8x WORTH ITSELF
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:50 am

    JUST LIKE WITH THE 1.8 BULLSHIT.  A BUNCH OF HACKS DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN A PROPER REGRESSION, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CLOWNS GOT PUBLISHED, ROGER CONSIDERS THEM EINSTEIN.  THEN LIES HIS ASS OFF ABOUT HOW ALL THIS CRAP IS SUBJECT TO RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AND THE TOUGHEST STANDARDS OF RESEARCH..
    Talk about bullshit.  Multicolinearity was bypassed in the way these studies were done but go on believing that you are smarter than these other guys. Your delusions 
    are both irritating and just plain stupid. Why don't you have the balls to go onto one of those sabermetric sites and challenge these guys with your "findings" ?


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


    LMAO!!!!!


    AND JUST HOW WERE THEY BYPASSED?!?!?!?!?


    AND AGAIN, I'M NOT DISCUSSING THIS WITH REAL RESEARCHER, I'M DISCUSSING WITH YOUR RETARDED ASS WHO CAN'T EVEN GIVE A COHERENT DEFINITION.


    ALL YOU DO IS CLAIM TOM TANGO IS SMARTER THAN ME


    YOUR THE DELUSIONAL ONE, NOT ME.


    SO WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE THE SITE


    MY GOOGLE SEARCHES HAVEN'T PRODUCED ANYTHING OF THE OUT RIGHT CRAP YOU CLAIM IS HAPPENING.  WHICH MEANS YOU ARE BUTCHERING THE WORK OF OTHERS AND ARE NOT ONLY TOO STUPID TO REALIZE IT, BUT TOO STUPID TO REALIZE I AM MOCKING YOU, NOT THEM
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:52 am

    High K's lower Bat Avg. but not sure what kind of correlation K's and BABIP have.  


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


    OF COURSE YOUR NOT SURE


    YOU A HACK
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:19 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote: had Sox examined the history of tall sluggers in their early 30's


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


    FRANK HOWARD LOOKED PRETTY DAMN GOOD FROM AGES 31-34!!!!  SAME AGE ADAM DUNN WAS WITH THE WHITE SOX 
    AGAIN YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP.  YOU LAUGHED WHEN I CLAIMED ADAM EATON WAS TOO SHORT.  NOW YOU CLAIM ADAM DUNN WAS JUST TOO TALL TO STAY GOOD
    I GUESS DARREL STRAWBERRY'S PROBLEM WAS TOO MANY INCHES, NOT TOO MANY LINES
    CAN'T WAIT TO WATCH AVISAIL GARCIA HIT 350 NEXT YEAR.  GIVEN HIS TOOLS AND WORK ETHIC AND TURNING THE MAGICAL AGE 27 ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK HE'D GO BACK TO THE CLOWN THAT BATTED 240 WITH A DOZEN HOMERS

    BUT I'M SURE YOU AND TOM TANGO WILL CHERRY PICK SOME OBSCURE RATION THAT PROVES ITS A FOR GONE CONCLUSION AND A GM WOULD HAVE TRADED HIM TO THE FIRST GM NAPPING AT THE BIBITY BOBITY BABIP.  NOT TOO MENTION THAT AT 6'4" HE'S TOO TALL TO STAY THIS GOOD FOR VERY LONG

    Howard, Jayson Werth and Mark McGwire are the only 6'4" plus guys who've maintained or done better than their prior 5 year WAR at ages 31-35, and we know Big Mac got help from his pharmacist.

    On the flip side, you have Richie Sexson, Ryan Howard, Josh Hamilton, Dale Murphy, Strawberry, Joe Mauer, Shawn Green who had big declines.  Even guys like Frank Thomas, Jim Thome and Miguel Cabrera who stayed good in their early-mid 30's weren't the same forces they were from ages 26-30.   Unlike the Big Hurt, Dunn wasn't on nearly as high a perch in his earlier years.  So where Thomas went from superstar to good player in his 30's, Dunn went from good to crappy.   

    Of course, the decline phase of 31-35 applies to all guys not just the tall ones, so it's hard to say whether 6'4" plus guys experience greater % drops than everyone else. . If we expand the list to include 6'3" sluggers it would also take in Colavito, Vlad Guerrero, Albert Pujols.   The guys who tend to do better at ages 31-35 are the Jeters, Alomars, Larkins, Biggios, Beltres. It makes some sense too as the taller hitters have more strike zone to cover and that becomes more challenging for guys whose bats have slowed a tad. 

    Of course you can find exceptions to every rule.  Dunn could have turned out like Frank Howard but history suggests his odds of turning into Ryan Howard were a lot greater. 
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:48 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:JUST LIKE WITH THE 1.8 BULLSHIT.  A BUNCH OF HACKS DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN A PROPER REGRESSION, BUT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE CLOWNS GOT PUBLISHED, ROGER CONSIDERS THEM EINSTEIN.  THEN LIES HIS ASS OFF ABOUT HOW ALL THIS CRAP IS SUBJECT TO RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AND THE TOUGHEST STANDARDS OF RESEARCH..
    Talk about bullshit.  Multicolinearity was bypassed in the way these studies were done but go on believing that you are smarter than these other guys. Your delusions 
    are both irritating and just plain stupid. Why don't you have the balls to go onto one of those sabermetric sites and challenge these guys with your "findings" ?


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


    LMAO!!!!!


    AND JUST HOW WERE THEY BYPASSED?!?!?!?!?


    AND AGAIN, I'M NOT DISCUSSING THIS WITH REAL RESEARCHER, I'M DISCUSSING WITH YOUR RETARDED ASS WHO CAN'T EVEN GIVE A COHERENT DEFINITION.


    ALL YOU DO IS CLAIM TOM TANGO IS SMARTER THAN ME


    YOUR THE DELUSIONAL ONE, NOT ME.


    SO WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE THE SITE


    MY GOOGLE SEARCHES HAVEN'T PRODUCED ANYTHING OF THE OUT RIGHT CRAP YOU CLAIM IS HAPPENING.  WHICH MEANS YOU ARE BUTCHERING THE WORK OF OTHERS AND ARE NOT ONLY TOO STUPID TO REALIZE IT, BUT TOO STUPID TO REALIZE I AM MOCKING YOU, NOT THEM

    This 1.8 shit is so absurd and tiresome because it's about your ego and trying to prove something, not any search for truth. I showed the one study which held OBP constant and changed Slug and vice-versa.  You ignored that.   I replicated that in basic examples showing how easy it was to avoid the interactivity of Slug and OBP variables and how the pure math overweighted Slug.  You ignored that.

    I haven't studied Statistics.  But I am a person who grasps concepts quite well and I understand multicolinearity. Not through your piss-poor explanations but reading about it, and I see where it can be avoided in these studies.  It seems quite odd that all these studies were run (about 12 at least) on the 1.8 concept and nary a one was called out due to multicolinearity.  Yet you, who haven't read a one of them in depth, proclaims them all to be a bunch of hacks who know shit.  Cite one 1.8 study that has that problem. 
    You have proved nothing except in your own mind.  You create delusional opinions based on a complete over-rating of your intellect and analytical abilities.  Which is why you get it wrong so often.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:57 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:High K's lower Bat Avg. but not sure what kind of correlation K's and BABIP have.  
    **************************
    OF COURSE YOUR NOT SURE
    YOU A HACK

    This is coming from the guy who got it wrong on Eaton, Garcia, Wieters, Chris Carter, Doug Fister, etc.  Yes, you are quite the expert.   Of course don't bother to explain how you see the correlation.  Just insult. That's persuasive as hell.   
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:19 pm

    This 1.8 shit is so absurd and tiresome because it's about your ego and trying to prove something, not any search for truth. I showed the one study which held OBP constant and changed Slug and vice-versa.  You ignored that.   I replicated that in basic examples showing how easy it was to avoid the interactivity of Slug and OBP variables and how the pure math overweighted Slug.  You ignored that.


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


    and i showed obp and slg are roughly equal and that the 1.8 is really representing that extra bases on hits happen about 1.8 as often as walks


    AND YOU IGNORED THAT!!!!!


    You on the other hand do an absolute shit job of explaining things and give incomprehensible examples.


    then when pressed, you lie your ass off and proclaim how much smarter tom tango is


    FUCK YOU
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:22 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:High K's lower Bat Avg. but not sure what kind of correlation K's and BABIP have.  
    **************************
    OF COURSE YOUR NOT SURE
    YOU A HACK

    This is coming from the guy who got it wrong on Eaton, Garcia, Wieters, Chris Carter, Doug Fister, etc.  Yes, you are quite the expert.   Of course don't bother to explain how you see the correlation.  Just insult. That's persuasive as hell.   


    i admit to being wrong on garcia and weiters

    eaton is an outright lie.  You completely invented that the white sox saved $20 and that was just your imaginary numbers.

    Carter and Fister were just to annoy you because you fall for it every single time

    PS, you were wrong on Garcia as well.  the 2nd half collapse predicted by BABIP never happened.  In fact, Garcia hit more lucky groundballs than ever b4.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1847
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:35 pm

    I haven't studied Statistics.  But I am a person who grasps concepts quite well and I understand multicolinearity. Not through your piss-poor explanations but reading about it, and I see where it can be avoided in these studies.


    AGAIN, JUST HOW WAS IT AVOIDED?!?!?!?!


      It seems quite odd that all these studies were run (about 12 at least) on the 1.8 concept and nary a one was called out due to multicolinearity. 


    MATH IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST.  MAYBE YOU OVERRATED THE BACKGROUND OF YOUR EXPERTS.  AND WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES?!?!?!


     Yet you, who haven't read a one of them in depth,


    AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW?!?!?!?


     proclaims them all to be a bunch of hacks who know shit.  Cite one 1.8 study that has that problem.


    EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT CONTAINS BOTH OBP AND SLG IN THE LINEAR REGRESSION.  A DOZEN DUMB ASSES THAT FORGOT ABOUT INDEPENENCE IS NOT PROOF.  EXCEPT FOR PROOF OF YOUR PISS POOR MATH SKILLS.
     
    You have proved nothing except in your own mind.  You create delusional opinions based on a complete over-rating of your intellect and analytical abilities.  Which is why you get it wrong so often.



    AND YOU ARE SIMPLY FULL OF SHIT.  I HAVE SHOWN 1.8 TO BE BULLSHIT SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS.  YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING




    AS FOR GRASPING CONCEPTS, YOU HAVE FAILED MISERABLY ON THAT AS WELL.  A SINGLE INCREASES OBP AND SLG BY ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT.  SO HOW THE HELL CAN A SINGLE BE WORTH 1.8 MORE THAN ITSELF?!?!?!?




    ALSO, HOW DO YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN ONE POINT OF OBP AGAINST ONE POINT OF SLG.




    YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GRASPS SHIT.  AND IF ANYBODY RELIES ON INSULTS, ITS YOU.  AND ITS YOUR FUCKING EGO THAT KEEPS THIS GOING BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DAMN ARROGANT TO ADMIT YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG ON THIS ISSUE




    OBP = SLG REGARDLESS OF TOM TANGO'S MATHEMATICAL MASTERBATION
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:34 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:and i showed obp and slg are roughly equal and that the 1.8 is really representing that extra bases on hits happen about 1.8 as often as walks

    First of all the average of that ratio you cite over the last twenty years is 1.63 not 1.8.    Second, that bears no relationship to the value of OBP v. Slug because the value of a double or HR is not just the number of EB's beyond 1st but also for baserunners being moved.   Conversely the value of a BB is not limited to the one base it gains but the avoidance of an out.  

    A hitter with 10 PA - 1 BB- 1 single - 1 double - 1 triple has a .333/.400/.600 line.  He comes to the plate with 0 on, 0 outs where run expectancy (RE) = .52 runs.

    S1 -He walks so his line is .333./.454/.600 but RE jumps  to .92 meaning an increase of .39 runs for
    for 54 pts more OBP.   Each point of OBP means .007 runs...
    S2 - Say, however, he hits a single instead - goes to .400/.454/.700 but run expectancy is same .39 increase as for a walk. The value of that added 100 pts of Slug = .0039 runs per pt of Slug increase
    Viola- that means a point of OBP is 1.84 times more valuable in RE than 1 pt of Slug. 

    s3 -  say it's 2 outs, bases loaded, RE = .79 and he hits a grand slam HR, Run expectancy goes to 4.11 Runs or an increase of 3.32 in run expectancy.  His line is .400/.454/1.000 or a bump of 400 Slug Pts.
    = .008 runs per pt of Slug increase.   In that situation, each point of Slug is more valuable than a point of OBP in 0 on, 0 out. 

    You run these various situations and find that sometimes Slug pts. are more valuable, other times OBP points can be worth 2.7 times more than Slug points.  So it's been determined that across the 24 different situations, an increased point of OBP averages out to be roughly 1.8 times more valuable than an increased point of Slug..
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:25 pm

    http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2013/05/the-obpslg-regression-puzzle.html
    http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/why_does_17obpslg_make_sense/

    Those are the links with the studies.

    I did make one calculation error from the above examples. I caught it in time to post the correction  (ie., the SLug should have been .667 instead of .600 in the "starting point").  It affects the singles v. BB calculation and ironically with the correction 1.6 pts of OBP is worth 1 pt of Slug.  However, that is just one of 24 different scenarios and each one will have a different value to OBP and SLug based on outs, baserunners, events and different run expectancies for each.
    For example a double v. a walk with 0 on, 0 out - 1 pt of OBP = 1.85 pts of SLug
    A double v. a single with 0 on, 0 out  - 1 pt of OBP = 5 pts. of Slug

    I will only post the detailed calculations if need be. I'm tired now. The point is that OBP (out avoidance) has run value over and above the gaining of one base.
     
    I am certain after working through this myself and reading Tango's articles that the linear weights used were a rollup of these 24 different run expectancy situations.  I'm sure if he ran several of the 24 scenarios he'd find widely differing values for OBP v. SLug in each one which makes perfect sense since a HR with runners on means the Slug component is more valuable where 0 on base makes OBP more important.  
    In the final analysis, using the 1.8 rule as a benchmark is overly general.  It is not that at all when runners are on 2nd and 3rd base and you compare a single to a BB. 
    Again, all I am trying to do is get at what the truth is (which is why I caught my error) and I hate all this ego/insult nonsense.  People can talk as reasonable human beings to solve a problem.
    avatar
    Hawk Harrelson
    Silent Hot Dog Vendor

    Posts : 1023
    Join date : 2014-06-13

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Hawk Harrelson on Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:13 am

    Let's get to a meeting to discuss stats with Murph!!
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2489
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by rmapasad on Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:25 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:High K's lower Bat Avg. but not sure what kind of correlation K's and BABIP have.  
    **************************
    OF COURSE YOUR NOT SURE
    YOU A HACK
    i admit to being wrong on garcia and weiters
    eaton is an outright lie.  You completely invented that the white sox saved $20 and that was just your imaginary numbers.
    Carter and Fister were just to annoy you because you fall for it every single time
    PS, you were wrong on Garcia as well.  the 2nd half collapse predicted by BABIP never happened.  In fact, Garcia hit more lucky groundballs than ever b4.

    Any projection or prediction are best guesses of what will happen.  Someone in the Sox staff had to create what you stupidly call "imaginary numbers" of what Eaton's value might be 6-7 years.  I was doing exactly the same thing that they did - so fuck off.

    There is little doubt the Sox saved a bundle of money by signing Eaton before rather than after 2015.
    In 2015, his OPS increased by 29 points over the prior year and his WAR was 3.8. His bargaining power was much greater, after proving himself for two straight years.  
    For his FA seasons of 2020-2021, the Sox negotiated options for basically $ 10 mil per. No way Eaton's agent in 2015 offseason allows Eaton to bargain off those years so cheaply when guys like Alex Gordon were getting $ 18 mil per, Upton $22 mil per, Heyward $ 22 mil per. in the open FA market... Plus he would have insisted on more than the $ 22 mil guaranteed that Eaton would be getting in 2016-2019 seasons.  

    Sponsored content

    Re: SO LONG RYMIER

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:41 am