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

# Will the 2018 Sox be worse than 2017 Sox ?

Chairman Reinsdorf

Posts : 2621
Join date : 2009-04-06
Location : Northridge, CA
Going into 2017, Sox had a cadre of veterans like Quintana, Robertson, Gonzalez, Cabrera, and Frazier who provided nearly 7 wins over replacement in the first half of the season.   But after they were traded Sox went from a .442 team to a .381 team.  Because their fill-ins were replacement level guys for most part.

Going into 2018, Sox don't have a group of veterans like that.  No vet pitchers as reliable as Quintana or Robertson or even a 3bman the equal of Frazier. The hitting vets (Abreu and Avi Garcia) had career-type years which are often hard to duplicate plus of the two SP's with any real big league experience, one is useless (Shields), the other is hurt again (Rodon).

So it's not inconceivable that the Sox could do what the Astros did in the second year of their recent rebuild  and lose more games than in the first year of rebuild.   Some of the pleasant "surprises" of 2017 like Avi, Sanchez, Narvaez, Delmonico, Leury, Willy, and Minaya could fall back.. Sure, there may be other pleasant surprises like Tilson, Cordell, or Fulmer to take up some slack.  As well as getting a full season from Moncada, Gioloto and Lopez.  Although not sure that either had a strong enough AAA season to be ready to dominate in 2018.  IMO, their time will come in 2019 or more likely 2020.  Of course, Anderson could rebound some in 2018 but there's a cap on his ceiling unless he starts to walk more and K less.

It took until the 4th year of both the recent Cub and Astros rebuilds for those teams to finally make the playoffs.  If the Sox have a similar timetable, that puts the first year of likely real contention at 2020.  Twins just made it to the playoffs in the 6th year of their rebuild which started with a new GM in 2012.  Of course in 2016 Twins lost more games than in prior years of their rebuild.

Guys who will push Sox toward championships in future like Jiminez, Robert, Collins, Hansen, Dunning will be on scene by late 2019 at earliest and contributors in 2020.  They can join Moncada, Gioloto, Lopez who should already be solid, strong players by 2020.  There's no need to rush this or fish around for expensive FA's in 2018 who will likely be on the downslide by time the young Sox players mature and become a real force in 2020-2022.

Hawk Harrelson
Silent Hot Dog Vendor

Posts : 1128
Join date : 2014-06-13
Agreed.
I went to more games this year than in prior seasons because it was a good time.

No more WIN NOW old man idiocy from blowhards like Murph or blockhead Lindberg.

Dumb ass Lindberg posted this Spring the rebuild would lead to an attendance drop to "uncharted depths".

Fucking idiot with a pen.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Fucking idiot with a pen.

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

I thought we were done discussing tom Tango's 1.8

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
rmapasad wrote:Going into 2017, Sox had a cadre of veterans like Quintana, Robertson, Gonzalez, Cabrera, and Frazier who provided nearly 7 wins over replacement in the first half of the season.   But after they were traded Sox went from a .442 team to a .381 team.  Because their fill-ins were replacement level guys for most part.

Going into 2018, Sox don't have a group of veterans like that.  No vet pitchers as reliable as Quintana or Robertson or even a 3bman the equal of Frazier. The hitting vets (Abreu and Avi Garcia) had career-type years which are often hard to duplicate plus of the two SP's with any real big league experience, one is useless (Shields), the other is hurt again (Rodon).

So it's not inconceivable that the Sox could do what the Astros did in the second year of their recent rebuild  and lose more games than in the first year of rebuild.   Some of the pleasant "surprises" of 2017 like Avi, Sanchez, Narvaez, Delmonico, Leury, Willy, and Minaya could fall back.. Sure, there may be other pleasant surprises like Tilson, Cordell, or Fulmer to take up some slack.  As well as getting a full season from Moncada, Gioloto and Lopez.  Although not sure that either had a strong enough AAA season to be ready to dominate in 2018.  IMO, their time will come in 2019 or more likely 2020.  Of course, Anderson could rebound some in 2018 but there's a cap on his ceiling unless he starts to walk more and K less.

It took until the 4th year of both the recent Cub and Astros rebuilds for those teams to finally make the playoffs.  If the Sox have a similar timetable, that puts the first year of likely real contention at 2020.  Twins just made it to the playoffs in the 6th year of their rebuild which started with a new GM in 2012.  Of course in 2016 Twins lost more games than in prior years of their rebuild.

Guys who will push Sox toward championships in future like Jiminez, Robert, Collins, Hansen, Dunning will be on scene by late 2019 at earliest and contributors in 2020.  They can join Moncada, Gioloto, Lopez who should already be solid, strong players by 2020.  There's no need to rush this or fish around for expensive FA's in 2018 who will likely be on the downslide by time the young Sox players mature and become a real force in 2020-2022.

There is also no need to poo poo everything and blatantly ignore problems.

And you claim I invent strawman arguements?!?!?!?  You entire nonsense against Lorenzo Cain is total strawman bullshit.  Nobody here is claiming Cain equals championship.  The 2018 White Sox currently lack a lead off hitter and a CF that can hit & play defense and Cain fills both roles.  This idea to play for 2020 is a wee bit retarded because you can't schedule when you are going to win.  This is Chicago.  2020 can easily become 2030 or 2040. If you actually looked at the team at hand, instead of spewing idiotic cliches, you'd see the pitching staff of the future is just about ready now.  Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer all set to join Rodon in the rotation this year.  Kopech, with a good year, probably the 2nd half.  Contrary tot he bad math you believe in, pitching is not independent of anything.  Good defense and good offense helps pitchers.  So yes, a Lorenzo Cain or a Billy Hamilton helps the rebuilding effort.  Ditto a veteran catcher.  And if these guys are gone by 2020, so what.  The games of 2018 and 2019 still need to be played.  Its only you who thinks its OK to completely write off multiple seasons at a time.  Those of us who actually watch the games understand that the next winning season will not be accomplished by a team barely old enough to drink the champagne they will be pouring.

Chairman Reinsdorf

Posts : 2621
Join date : 2009-04-06
Location : Northridge, CA
Deplorable Mark wrote:
Fuck this stupid-ass "this is Chicago" crap.   This is major league baseball and major league sports. Rebuilds take time.   Just because YOU want to rush out and fill holes with vets like a win-now team  does not mean that GM's who actually have done this and succeeded before follow your bizarre strategy.

2020 can easily become 2030 or 2040. If you actually looked at the team at hand, instead of spewing idiotic cliches, you'd see the pitching staff of the future is just about ready now.  Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer all set to join Rodon in the rotation this year.  Kopech, with a good year, probably the 2nd half.  Contrary tot he bad math you believe in, pitching is not independent of anything.  Good defense and good offense helps pitchers.  So yes, a Lorenzo Cain or a Billy Hamilton helps the rebuilding effort.  Ditto a veteran catcher.  And if these guys are gone by 2020, so what.  The games of 2018 and 2019 still need to be played.  Its only you who thinks its OK to completely write off multiple seasons at a time.
No it's not me, it's YOU that's out in lu-lu land with some idiotic bullshit strategy. It was YOU insisting the Sox HAD to find a Free agent Catcher and guys like Chris Carter and Doug Fister to "play the games" in 2017. Or what ?  The Sox would lose fan interest ?  LMAO... Rick Hahn and the rest of this board agreed with the sane, logical strategy - 2017 was experimenting with guys under 28 years old.   So will 2018 be, except for a few CHEAP vet fill-ins here and there.  You don't go out and get an expensive 32 year old vet EXPECTING he'll be needed for the 2018-2019 playoff run when you have a good chunk of your future team still in AA.
Rodon won't even join the staff until June again.  Gioloto and Lopez both struggled some in AAA this year, so it's hard to tell what 2018 will bring for them.   Kopech hasn't even pitched in AAA yet.  Point is NOT to overload these guys with too many stressful IP in the majors when the team is likely not to win anything in 2018.  Have them throw 170 innings instead of 200+.
Leury Garcia can catch flyballs as well as Lorenzo Cain.  So no young pitcher is going to get discouraged by the defense.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
It took until the 4th year of both the recent Cub

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

more like 108 years!!!!!!!!

As to whether or not they improve upon 68 wins......

Nobody knows, so spare us the bullshit stats because that includes your hero Tom "not my real name" Tango!!!!

Expect the best, prepare for the worse.  That's what the White Sox need to do.  Meaning, I don't sacrifice the future, but I don't ignore the present either.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Fuck this stupid-ass "this is Chicago" crap.   This is major league baseball and major league sports. Rebuilds take time.   Just because YOU want to rush out and fill holes with vets like a win-now team  does not mean that GM's who actually have done this and succeeded before follow your bizarre strategy.

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

OUT RIGHT LIE

TELL THE TRUTH INSTEAD OF INVENTING STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

YOU CAN'T EVEN GET YOU HISTORY CORRECT.

MY BIZARRE STRATEGY, THATS A LAUGH.  WTF IS YOUR STRATEGY?!?!?!?!  PLAY SOME CLOWN THAT HAS BEEN HURT FOR A 1 AND A HALF AND MAKE THE PITCHING STAFF SUFFER BECAUSE HE CAN'T COVER ENOUGH GROUND.  YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE.  AND YOU WERE THE ONE THAT CLAIMED CF IS A DEFENSIVE POSITION

YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE YOUR OWN DOUBLE TALK

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Deplorable Mark wrote:
Fuck this stupid-ass "this is Chicago" crap.   This is major league baseball and major league sports. Rebuilds take time.   Just because YOU want to rush out and fill holes with vets like a win-now team  does not mean that GM's who actually have done this and succeeded before follow your bizarre strategy.

2020 can easily become 2030 or 2040. If you actually looked at the team at hand, instead of spewing idiotic cliches, you'd see the pitching staff of the future is just about ready now.  Giolito, Lopez, and Fulmer all set to join Rodon in the rotation this year.  Kopech, with a good year, probably the 2nd half.  Contrary tot he bad math you believe in, pitching is not independent of anything.  Good defense and good offense helps pitchers.  So yes, a Lorenzo Cain or a Billy Hamilton helps the rebuilding effort.  Ditto a veteran catcher.  And if these guys are gone by 2020, so what.  The games of 2018 and 2019 still need to be played.  Its only you who thinks its OK to completely write off multiple seasons at a time.
No it's not me, it's YOU that's out in lu-lu land with some idiotic bullshit strategy. It was YOU insisting the Sox HAD to find a Free agent Catcher and guys like Chris Carter and Doug Fister to "play the games" in 2017. Or what ?  The Sox would lose fan interest ?  LMAO... Rick Hahn and the rest of this board agreed with the sane, logical strategy - 2017 was experimenting with guys under 28 years old.   So will 2018 be, except for a few CHEAP vet fill-ins here and there.  You don't go out and get an expensive 32 year old vet EXPECTING he'll be needed for the 2018-2019 playoff run when you have a good chunk of your future team still in AA.
Rodon won't even join the staff until June again.  Gioloto and Lopez both struggled some in AAA this year, so it's hard to tell what 2018 will bring for them.   Kopech hasn't even pitched in AAA yet.  Point is NOT to overload these guys with too many stressful IP in the majors when the team is likely not to win anything in 2018.  Have them throw 170 innings instead of 200+.
Leury Garcia can catch flyballs as well as Lorenzo Cain.  So no young pitcher is going to get discouraged by the defense.

AGAIN YOU LIE!!!!!!

I NEVER CLAIMED WEITERS ETC MAKES THEM A CHAMPION!!!!!

AND WHO PLAYED IN THEIR PLACE MR LIAR?!?!?!?

GEO SOTO, CODY ACHE, MIKE PELFREY

WHAT A LIST OF ALL STARS!!!!!

AND ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT COMPLETELY DISTORTS WHAT I AM REALLY WRITING ABOUT THE TOPIC, JUST LIKE ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT CAN'T COMPREHEND 1.8 IS BAD MATH\

YOUR SILLY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO PLAYS WHERE ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETER OR NOT A LORENZO CAIN HELPS THE TEAM.  HE DOES AS LONG AS THE TEAM DOESN'T OVER SPEND.  BUT YOU'RE TOO RIGID AND STUBBORN TO SEE THAT, INSTEAD YOU OUT RIGHT LIE ABOUT THE WHOLE SUBJECT

THE TRUTH IS, THE WHITE SOX HAVE NO CF AND NO LEADOFF HITTER.  SO UNLESS THEIR IS A SOLUTION ALREADY IN THE ORG, LIKE JIMINEZ AND LF, THEN THE PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.  LUIS ROBERT, HAVING YET TO ESCAPE ROOKIE BALL, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN ANSWER AT THIS TIME

SANE ORGANIZATION ADDRESS THEIR PROBLEMS.  RETARDS LIKE YOU IGNORE THEM AND INVENT STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY THEIR BULLSHIT.  SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD MAKE A CASE WHY A PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN HURT FOR 1.5 YEARS IS BETTER THAN A PROVEN ALL STAR.  YOU CAN'T.  SO YOU DISTRACT US WITH YOUR LIES.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
overload these guys with too many stressful IP

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

WHEN DID THE KARK SUGGEST THIS?!?!?!?!

AGAIN ROGER LIES!!!!!!

WELL MR LIAR, YOUR DELUSIONS ARE NOT A COHERENT COUNTER ARGUMENT

JUST LIKE YOUR LIES ABOUT TOM "NOT IS REAL NAME" TANGO'S BRILLANCE IS NOT A COHERENT COUNTER ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BAD MATH THAT YOU, AND I MEAN YOU, HAVE PRESENTED ON THIS BOARD REGARDING 1.8

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
overload these guys with too many stressful IP

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

HEY JACK ASS

HOW STRESSFUL WILL IT BE WHEN FLY BALLS THAT BILLY HAMILTON OR LORENZO CAIN WOULD HAVE CAUGHT FALL A STEP OR TWO AROUND CHARLIE TILSON

IS TILSON EVEN HEALTHY YET?!?!?

BETTER GET USED TO WILY GARCIA IF YOU INSIST ON DELIBERATELY DISAGREEING WITH THE KARK THAT CF NEEDS AN EXTERNAL SOLUTION

Chairman Reinsdorf

Posts : 2621
Join date : 2009-04-06
Location : Northridge, CA
Deplorable Mark wrote:AND ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT COMPLETELY DISTORTS WHAT I AM REALLY WRITING ABOUT THE TOPIC, JUST LIKE ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT CAN'T COMPREHEND 1.8 IS BAD MATH

These are the final points I'm going to make about these sorry 1.8 myths that you keep perpetuating in your own mind. It has been a colossal waste of time due to:

1- Your arguments consisting of 90% insults/personal bragging and only 10% real content.

2- Ignoring that the researchers did what I saw could easily be done, and hold one of the interdependent variables constant while looking how the other variable independently affected run scoring.

3 - Ignoring that the James formula (OBP*Slug) that you say works so well would have to suffer from the same problem of multicolinearity

4 - Ignoring Bill James' statement that Slug has a higher STDEV and thus is generally going to create a higher gap per event (other than singles) than OBP which may require some multiple of OBP to reconcile  those STDEV gaps when it comes to run scoring value.

5- Claiming, without reading any of these studies in depth, that the dozen or more researchers who've all come up with very similar conclusions are a bunch of hacks that don't grasp Stat 101.

6 - Claiming your formula of extra bases off hits/ BB explains 1.8 when (a) the formula you cite really comes out to 1.6 not 1.8  and (b) where you don't explain how your formula relates to run scoring.
That's the real bottom line.  What value does each pt of OBP and Slug have in scoring runs ?

7 - Making this an ego contest instead of a search for any truth.

While 1.8 may be true in general, it's just an "average" of  24 possible scenarios ranging from 0 out, 0 on to 2 outs, bases loaded.  In some of those, OBP will be more valuable, and in others Slug will be.
Managers' job is to get the best odds of success in each situation... What hitter has the best chance against that pitcher and what outcomes do you want to try for given the score, outs, inning, baserunners, etc.  That's baseball, not some one size fits all general formula...

I am convinced that everything above is basically solid and logical.  My expectation that all of this will be "refuted" by the same old insults and name-calling rather than any logic or facts.  If that is still the case I will no longer take up my time or space on this Board to answer.

Chairman Reinsdorf

Posts : 2621
Join date : 2009-04-06
Location : Northridge, CA
YOUR SILLY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO PLAYS WHERE ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETER OR NOT A LORENZO CAIN HELPS THE TEAM.  HE DOES AS LONG AS THE TEAM DOESN'T OVER SPEND.  BUT YOU'RE TOO RIGID AND STUBBORN TO SEE THAT, INSTEAD YOU OUT RIGHT LIE ABOUT THE WHOLE SUBJECT ...
Insult away only to get proven wrong again like you did on the whole Wieters nonsense.  Cain isn't going to sign with the Sox on some bargain terms anymore than Wieters was.  If the Sox want Cain they have to pay him $$because$$\$ are the main reason he'd come to the Sox. Unless it's Feb, and he hasn't signed yet.  But the Sox have to plan what to do with CF before Feb.  They can't wait around in hopes that Cain will fall in their laps at a lowball price/terms.

HOW STRESSFUL WILL IT BE WHEN FLY BALLS THAT BILLY HAMILTON OR LORENZO CAIN WOULD HAVE CAUGHT FALL A STEP OR TWO AROUND CHARLIE TILSON >
Talk about distortion.  I have said all along that Leury Garcia could handle CF and when/if Tilson shows he can compete for the job, let him compete.  As to defense, Garcia was a BETTER defensive CFer than Cain in 2017.  He saved 4.1 runs above avg. in only 400 innings, and Cain saved 3.9 RAA in 1200+ innings. Cain's defense has been on the decline ever since his peak year in 2013 at age 27.  Now you want the Sox to throw a lot of money at this soon to be 32 year old for what reason again ?
BETTER GET USED TO WILY GARCIA IF YOU INSIST ON DELIBERATELY DISAGREEING WITH THE KARK THAT CF NEEDS AN EXTERNAL SOLUTION >>
3b requires a solution too, and while I think Moncada is probably the better solution, the Sox may want to try Sanchez there (who doesn't hit enough for 3b) or Davidson which is sorta like putting Adam Dunn there both offensively and defensively.  Then there's DH, Catcher, and LF plus 3/5 of the rotation, Closer and setup.  Yet you want to single out CF and say that is essential for the Sox in 2018-2019, ignoring that these other holes are like an anchor despite who plays CF these next couple years.  That's before we even talk about whether Abreu goes into another nosedive like he did after 2014, whether Anderson can ever learn even a minimal amount of plate discipline  or whether Avi Garcia had an outer body-never-to-be-repeated 2017 season.

THE TRUTH IS, THE WHITE SOX HAVE NO CF AND NO LEADOFF HITTER.  SO UNLESS THEIR IS A SOLUTION ALREADY IN THE ORG, LIKE JIMINEZ AND LF, THEN THE PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.  LUIS ROBERT, HAVING YET TO ESCAPE ROOKIE BALL, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN ANSWER AT THIS TIME
SANE ORGANIZATION ADDRESS THEIR PROBLEMS.  RETARDS LIKE YOU IGNORE THEM AND INVENT STATISTICS TO JUSTIFY THEIR BULLSHIT.  SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD MAKE A CASE WHY A PLAYER WHO HAS BEEN HURT FOR 1.5 YEARS IS BETTER THAN A PROVEN ALL STAR.  YOU CAN'T.  SO YOU DISTRACT US WITH YOUR LIES.>
Sane organizations have a strategy and stick to it.  They don't rebuild and go young, then cut the legs out from their younger players by bringing in a 32 year old expensive free agent who may be only a marginal improvement over the younger Garcia/Tilson combo. Especially in a year when the team as a whole is so poor of a bet to contend.  Hahn's plan is to keep this youth movement going forward, draft well this summer, keep developing the younger players without needlessly rushing them and have an organization that can PERPETUATE success from 2020-2025.
Not just patch one or two spots in free agency as Sox have done since 2006 under some half-baked win-now strategy.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Roger just proved he's bad at math when he claimed James formula suffers from multicolinearity

Runs created is not a linear regression, it's a mathematical relationship.  Therefore the independence rules don't apply

Which brings me to his lie about my arguments being 90%insults.  More like I insult him 90% of the time I catch him doing bad math.  Which is quite often.  Not to mention how often he misrepresents the work of others.  Then there are his make believe degrees for his imaginary researchers.....

Runs created has a colinearity problem.  LMAO.  How stupid does one have to be to post something so retarded

Chairman Reinsdorf

Posts : 2621
Join date : 2009-04-06
Location : Northridge, CA
Deplorable Mark wrote:Roger just proved he's bad at math when he claimed James formula suffers from multicolinearity

Runs created is not a linear regression, it's a mathematical relationship.  Therefore the independence rules don't apply

Which brings me to his lie about my arguments being 90%insults.  More like I insult him 90% of the time I catch him doing bad math.  Which is quite often.  Not to mention how often he misrepresents the work of others.  Then there are his make believe degrees for his imaginary researchers.....

Runs created has a colinearity problem.  LMAO.  How stupid does one have to be to post something so retarded

Oh boy, this same old crap.   The formula being referred to wasn't the Runs Created version which finally was amended by James in 2002 but the old version you used which was OBP * Slug .. James' 2002 version of RC used a Linear Weighted system which valued each event separately (singles, walks, even K's)

You have ZERO right to insult anyone when you have utterly failed to explain your ridiculous multicolinearity objection properly and completely failed to address the studies which showed how the 1.8 was arrived at holding either OBP or Slug constant so there was no interdependence. You keep beating an absurd point that YOU and ONLY YOU think is an objection..
So if you choose to waste your or the board's time with this further it is only because of your fucked up personality and psychologically disturbed need to find "gotchas" about others, even to the point of inventing them.   BTW, I could give a flying fuck about how "pig-biting mad' this makes you. That says volumes about you.   You need to see someone about this anger management problem.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Deplorable Mark wrote:Roger just proved he's bad at math when he claimed James formula suffers from multicolinearity

Runs created is not a linear regression, it's a mathematical relationship.  Therefore the independence rules don't apply

Which brings me to his lie about my arguments being 90%insults.  More like I insult him 90% of the time I catch him doing bad math.  Which is quite often.  Not to mention how often he misrepresents the work of others.  Then there are his make believe degrees for his imaginary researchers.....

Runs created has a colinearity problem.  LMAO.  How stupid does one have to be to post something so retarded

Oh boy, this same old crap.   The formula being referred to wasn't the Runs Created version which finally was amended by James in 2002 but the old version you used which was OBP * Slug .. James' 2002 version of RC used a Linear Weighted system which valued each event separately (singles, walks, even K's)

MORE LIKE THE SAME OLD CRAP FROM YOU.  The simple version of RC always could be rewritten as AB * OBP * SLG.  and again, you prove you know nothing of what you speak.  While updated versions included weights, it always follows the format of  A times B divided by C.  In other words, its not a linear regression.  try learning the difference.

You have ZERO right to insult anyone when you have utterly failed to explain your ridiculous multicolinearity objection properly and completely failed to address the studies which showed how the 1.8 was arrived at holding either OBP or Slug constant so there was no interdependence. You keep beating an absurd point that YOU and ONLY YOU think is an objection..

FAILED TO WHO?!?!?!?!  YOUR STUPID ASS!!!!!  YOUR THE MORON THAT JUST OUTRIGHT LIED THAT JAMES RUNS CREATED WOULD HAVE A MULTICOLINEARITY PROBLEM.  ANYBODY THAT KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT MATH KNOWS THIS IS FALSE

So if you choose to waste your or the board's time with this further it is only because of your fucked up personality and psychologically disturbed need to find "gotchas" about others, even to the point of inventing them.   BTW, I could give a flying fuck about how "pig-biting mad' this makes you. That says volumes about you.   You need to see someone about this anger management problem.

LMAO!!!!!!

POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK

MORE LIKE I GET A PERVERSE PLEASURE EXPOSING YOU AS A LIAR AND A MORON.  YOU ARE THE WHACKO THAT INVENTS BAD MATH AND CLAIMS ITS THE WORK OF THE NATIONS EXPERTS WHO WORK NIGHT AND DAY TO TURN BASEBALL INTO CALCULUS.

YOU SIR ARE A LIAR AND A MORON.  YOU 8 POINT TIRADE ABOUT HOW YOU THINK YOU ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN ME IS FILLED WITH MATH ERRORS.   AS FOR CONTENT, EVERY TIME I EXPOSE YOUR BAD MATH, YOU HIDE BEHIND TOM TANGO'S SKIRT.  I BET IF HE WERE ON THIS BOARD, HE'D TELL YOU TO QUIT BUTCHERING HIS WORK.

PS, IT WASN'T MY WIFE THAT RAN AWAY FROM ME.  SO FUCK YOU LOSER

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
You keep beating an absurd point that YOU and ONLY YOU think is an objection..

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

MY REAL POINT IS THAT YOU ARE A LIAR THAT INVENTS BULLSHIT!!!!!

YOU CAN'T PUT OBP AND SLG INTO THE SAME LINEAR REGRESSION

YOU SIMPLY CAN'T

YOU HAVE NEVER SHOWN ANYWHERE THAT YOU CAN

INSTEAD, YOU INSULT THE BOARD WITH ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS

THE TRUTH IS, YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE HOW 1.8 IS DERIVED.  YOU HAVE JUST BUILLSHITED THE BOARD FOR A DECADE.

THAT IS WHAT REALLY PISSES ME OFF.

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
Deplorable Mark wrote:AND ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT COMPLETELY DISTORTS WHAT I AM REALLY WRITING ABOUT THE TOPIC, JUST LIKE ITS YOUR STUPID ASS THAT CAN'T COMPREHEND 1.8 IS BAD MATH

These are the final points I'm going to make about these sorry 1.8 myths that you keep perpetuating in your own mind. It has been a colossal waste of time due to:

1- Your arguments consisting of 90% insults/personal bragging and only 10% real content.

OUTRIGHT LIE.  I INSULT YOUR BAD MATH WHICH IS DEVOID OF CONTENT.

2- Ignoring that the researchers did what I saw could easily be done, and hold one of the interdependent variables constant while looking how the other variable independently affected run scoring.

PURE STUPIDITY.  HOW DO YOU HOLD ONE CONSTANT WHEN ANY TYPE OF HIT ADDS TO BOTH.  NOW YOUR JUST MAKING SHIT UP.  PS, OBP AND SLG ARE NOT INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.  SINGLES ARE ROUGHLY 60% SLG.  THOSE SAME SINGLES ARE 80% OBP.  DO YOU EVEN COMPREHEND WTF YOU ARE WRITING?

3 - Ignoring that the James formula (OBP*Slug) that you say works so well would have to suffer from the same problem of multicolinearity

MORE BAD MATH AND AN OUT RIGHT LIE.  RC IS NOT A LINEAR REGGRESSION, THEREFORE AN'T HAVE A MULTICOLINEARUTY PROBLEM

4 - Ignoring Bill James' statement that Slug has a higher STDEV and thus is generally going to create a higher gap per event (other than singles) than OBP which may require some multiple of OBP to reconcile  those STDEV gaps when it comes to run scoring value.

PURE GIBBERISH.  BUT KEEP THROWING OUT THE BIG WORDS.  I'M SURE THE TERM STANDARD DEVIATION WILL FOOL SOMEBODY INTO THINKING YOU HAVE A CLUE

5- Claiming, without reading any of these studies in depth, that the dozen or more researchers who've all come up with very similar conclusions are a bunch of hacks that don't grasp Stat 101.

MORE LIES.  YOU HAVE NOT A CLUE WHAT I DO AND DON'T READ.  YOU HOWVER, CLEARLY DON'T COMPREHEND SABERMETRICS.  THIS POST PROVES ITS THE WHAY YOU ARE COMINGLING AND CONFUSING DIFFERENT CONCEPTS

6 - Claiming your formula of extra bases off hits/ BB explains 1.8 when (a) the formula you cite really comes out to 1.6 not 1.8

AGAIN, YOUR PROVE YOU STUPIDITY.  WHEN YOU STARTING LYING ABOUT THIS NONSENSE A DECADE AGO, YOU CLAIMED THE RANGE WAS 1.4 - 1.8.  SO 1.6 FALLS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT RANGE

and (b) where you don't explain how your formula relates to run scoring.

WOW, YOU ARE ONE DUMB FUCK.  I NEVER CLAIMED THIS WAS A FORMULA THAT EXPLAINS RUN SCORING.  I SIMPLY DIVIDIED THE NONSINGLES OF SLG BY THE NONSINGLES OF OBP TO SHOW WHERE YOUR 1.8 BULLSHIT COMES FROM.  NOT MY FAULT IT WENT STRAIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD
That's the real bottom line.  What value does each pt of OBP and Slug have in scoring runs ?

THIS IS BEYOND STUPID.  YOU CAN'T HAVE A POINT OF SLUGGING WITHOUT ALSO GETTING A POINT OF OBP.  SO ONLY A MORON WOULD TREAT THESE AS TWO DISTINCT EVENTS.  AND FOR THE RECORD, THE ONLY MORON I KNOW DOING THAT IS YOU.

7 - Making this an ego contest instead of a search for any truth.

WRONG!!! IT'S YOUR EGO THAT CAN'T ADMIT TO BEING WRONG.   SO IN PRINCIPLE, I CAN'T LET YOU GET AWAY WITH SPREADING MISINFORMATION

While 1.8 may be true in general, it's just an "average" of  24 possible scenarios ranging from 0 out, 0 on to 2 outs, bases loaded.

YOU TRULY ARE MATH CHALLENGED.  NOW YOUR CONFUSING A LINEAR REGRESSION WITH A MATRIX.

In some of those, OBP will be more valuable, and in others Slug will be.

BTW, YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THIS RIGHT.  IF 1.8 IS THE AVERAGE, THAT MEANS THE AVERAGE TEAM WOULD SCORE ABOUT 16 RUNS A GAME.  YOU DON'T EVEN COMPREHEND YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.  YOU ARE JUST THROWING OUT ALL THE CRAP YOU CAN THINK OF.  AND YOU WOINDER WHY I CALL YOU A MORON AND A LIAR

Managers' job is to get the best odds of success in each situation... What hitter has the best chance against that pitcher and what outcomes do you want to try for given the score, outs, inning, baserunners, etc.  That's baseball, not some one size fits all general formula...

WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!?!?!?!?  YOUR THE ONLY CLOWN THAT THINKS A MANAGE HAS A CHOICE BETWEEN SLG AND OBP

I am convinced that everything above is basically solid and logical.  My expectation that all of this will be "refuted" by the same old insults and name-calling rather than any logic or facts.  If that is still the case I will no longer take up my time or space on this Board to answer.

LMAO

SAME OLD BULLSHIT FROM YOU.  ALL PROVEN WRONG WITH A COMBINATION OF FACTS, SARCASM, AND INSULTS.

NOW TELL ME AGAIN HOW MUCH SMARTER TOM "NOT HIS REAL NAME" TANGO IS THAN ME.  HAS IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU YOU COMPLETELY BUTCHERED HIS WORK.

BTW, STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SIGN UP AT THE BILL JAMES WEBSITE SO WE CAN ASK THE SABR GOD FATHER TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU CLEARLY CANNOT

Deplorable Mark
Roof Shot

Posts : 2243
Join date : 2016-09-16
HEY ROGER

HERE'S BILL JAMES RUNS CREATED FORMULA

### Calculation Formula:

RC[size=12]BJ = ( A•B ) / C[/size]
where,

• A - On-base factor

• C - Opportunity factor

• RCBJ - runs created (Bill James)

COPIED STRAIGHT FROM HIS WEBSITE

THAT'S NOT A LINEAR REGRESSION, SO AGAIN, YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A LIE.

HERE'S THE 2002 MENTIONED

### 2002 version of runs created

Earlier versions of runs created overestimated the number of runs created by players with extremely high A and B factors (on-base and slugging), such as Babe RuthTed Williams and Barry Bonds. This is because these formulas placed a player in an offensive context of players equal to himself; it is as if the player is assumed to be on base for himself when he hits home runs. Of course, this is impossible, and in reality, a great player is interacting with offensive players whose contributions are inferior to his. The 2002 version corrects this by placing the player in the context of his real-life team. This 2002 version also takes into account performance in "clutch" situations.
A: {\displaystyle H+BB-CS+HBP-GIDP}B: {\displaystyle (1.125\times \ {\rm {{Singles})+(1.69\times {\rm {{Doubles})+(3.02\times {\rm {{Triples})+(3.73\times HR)+.29\times (BB-IBB+HBP)+.492\times (SH+SF+SB)-(.04\times K)}}}}}}}C: {\displaystyle AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF}
where K is strikeout.
The initial individual runs created estimate is then:
{\displaystyle RC=\left({\frac {(2.4C+A)\;(3C+B)}{9C}}\right)-.9C}

NOTICE HOW OBP AND SLG ARE BROKEN OUT.  NOTICE NO 1.8.  I CAN SEE RIGHT AWAY THAT JAMES HAS ADJUSTED HIS FORMULA TO HAVE A WEIGHTED TOTAL BASES WHERE SINGLES ARE WEIGHTED MORE, DOUBLES AND HOMERS WEIGHTED LESS AND TRIPLES JUST ABOUT THE SAME.  NOT THAT I EXPECT YOU TO COMPREHEND WHAT JAMES IS DOING.  YOUR STUPID ASS THOUGHT THIS WAS A LINEAR REGRESSION IN ANOTHER POST

NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RIDICULOUS CLAIM OBP IS WORTH ABOUT 1.7 OR 1.8 AS MUCH AS SLG.  THAT IS SIMPLY BAD MATH.  IT'S YOUR EGO THAT CAN'T ACCEPT THIS

BTW, HERE'S YOUYR FREAKIN' GOLD STANDADRD

The formula, as it originally appeared in The Book, is

{\displaystyle wOBA={\frac {(0.72*NIBB)+(0.75*HBP)+(0.90*{\mathit {1}}B)+(0.92*RBOE)+(1.24*{\mathit {2}}B)+(1.56*{\mathit {3}}B)+(1.95*HR)}{PA}}}

where:

I FAIL TO SEE HOW JAMES USED THE WORK OF TANGO CONSIDERING HOW DIFFERENT THE COEFFICIENTS ARE.

SO AGAIN, MORE LIES AND BAD MATH FROM ROGER