Mike Trout Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
LOL.

You're so pathetic, that it's funny.

Again, who's the person here who won't agree with the data because it doesn't fit with what he "knows"?
3/3/2015 12:44 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Oh, and thanks once again for wasting everybody's time with your nonsense.

3/3/2015 12:47 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
It sounds like all the data is being used, tec, just more efficiently.
3/3/2015 12:47 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
You're using a sample of less than 20 when a sample of over 500 is available for the same time frame. 
3/3/2015 12:47 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/3/2015 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Tec really doesn't understand statistics.
Retard school let out early today?
3/3/2015 12:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Sounds like tec is using the numbers he likes while BL is using the ones that prove his point.   They're drawing from the same database but manipulating them to show what they want.
 
Shocker that you can do that with stats. 
3/3/2015 12:59 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (1)
Hall of Famer
4 1 153 32 129
Prospect
I'm using the numbers that make the most sense, which would be consolidated and summarized numbers that take things like park factors, the makeups of particular pitching staffs, etc. and other such things out of the equation.

BL's getting down to a too granular level.  I don't think you can draw any meaningful conclusions from that level of finite detail.  You need to summarize it and look at it at a higher level.

It would be like, for example, taking two players who have similar rate stats in some specific category and comparing them to draw some sort of conclusion, only to find out that the two players are Mike Trout and Mario Mendoza.



3/3/2015 1:08 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Since BL is blocked, I know tec is using league averages and, last night, BL said something to the effect of "No, you have to use teams!!"     So I'm assuming that's what he's doing. 

While tec only has 20 seasons and I'll assume BL has around 560, what makes BL's method "unambiguously better"?   The sheer number of data points?

3/3/2015 1:13 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Team construction matters.    As I pointed out earlier, good teams that strike out a lot are using players who do something useful when they're not striking out(like an Adam Dunn who strikes out 28% of his plate appearances but does something positive in 36% of his PA).   Bad teams use a Brett Wallace who whiffs 33% of the time while only doing something positive 31% of the time. 

As far as whiffing, they're practically the same guy but Dunn is much more valuable.
3/3/2015 1:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So, while I'd rather use 560 data points, I think tec's mere 20 tells a better story. 
3/3/2015 1:21 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Since BL is blocked, I know tec is using league averages and, last night, BL said something to the effect of "No, you have to use teams!!"     So I'm assuming that's what he's doing. 

While tec only has 20 seasons and I'll assume BL has around 560, what makes BL's method "unambiguously better"?   The sheer number of data points?

Yes.

3/3/2015 1:21 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 10:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 9:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 3/2/2015 4:45:00 PM (view original):
If we want to make arguments that are at best marginally relevant but sound like they mean something, here you go:

Take the top 30 seasons in history in total K:

25 of them have a wRC+ above 100
they average over 34 HR
they average a .345 OBP; only 2013 Pedro Alvarez OBPs under .300
they average a .488 SLG; only 2011 Drew Stubbs slugs under .400

So the worst hitters in history, per strikeouts, average an .833 OPS.  That's a lot better than average.
This was the post I was referring to earlier today.

You don't get to strike out a lot if you're not doing something valuable when you're not whiffing.     It's sort of like pitcher losses.   If you're not doing something right, you're not getting the opportunity to lose 20.   

Here are some players who struck out more than once every 3 AB since 2000(min 200 PA):
Kelly Shoppach  2012
Brad Eldred 2005
Brett Wallace 2013
Juan Francisco  A couple of times
Jason Dubois  2005

Pretty solid list of All-Stars, isn't it?
Pretty sure every one of these guys was on a bad team.    They whiffed a lot and didn't provide any value the rest of the time.
These guys. 
3/3/2015 1:27 PM
burnsy483
Posts: 6848 (0)
Veteran
1 1 26
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/3/2015 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Team construction matters.    As I pointed out earlier, good teams that strike out a lot are using players who do something useful when they're not striking out(like an Adam Dunn who strikes out 28% of his plate appearances but does something positive in 36% of his PA).   Bad teams use a Brett Wallace who whiffs 33% of the time while only doing something positive 31% of the time. 

As far as whiffing, they're practically the same guy but Dunn is much more valuable.
This sounds like a reason to use BL's model. If you use tec's model it makes Adam Dunn look like Brett Wallace. No?
3/3/2015 1:28 PM
◂ Prev 1...28|29|30|31|32...65 Next ▸
Mike Trout Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.