Should KC plunk Bautista because he's a jerk? Topic

dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2016 3:31:00 PM (view original):
After BL insisted that there was NO correlation, duhs pointed out that there was. That's when BL started singing the "it's marginal!!" song.

Kind of like finally being forced to admit that water IS wet. It's just not wet enough.
http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/ingenious-richard-saykally
7/4/2016 11:44 PM
sjpoker
Posts: 3556 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 107
Prospect
Hmmm. No BL.
7/5/2016 5:34 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Maybe he accidentally came across a baseball game on TV, and got scared.
7/5/2016 8:54 AM
Jtpsops
Posts: 13987 (1)
Hall of Famer
625 1 2 2 138
Prospect
I'd say it's more likely his mom took away his computer privileges.
7/5/2016 9:40 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/3/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):
ERA vs. K/9:


ERA vs. K%:


With R^2 values of .16 and .25 BL would interpret that to suggest no correlation...
Are you still using team stats 2007-2015?

I ran SO/9 to ERA and got the following:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.601367954
R Square 0.361643417
Adjusted R Square 0.359169166
Standard Error 0.395606114
Observations 260
7/5/2016 3:51 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
An R squared of 0.36 isn't great but it's a lot stronger than either of yours (and a lot stronger than the offensive R to Ks correlation).

And if you run 1970-2016 SO/9 to ERA, you get:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.069890198
R Square 0.00488464
Adjusted R Square 0.004084708
Standard Error 0.571058
Observations 1246

7/5/2016 3:51 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I ran it again from 1958 to 1967 and got:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.424960481
R Square 0.18059141
Adjusted R Square 0.17593568
Standard Error 0.435207747
Observations 178

7/5/2016 3:54 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
So for 1970-2016 strikeouts have no impact whatsoever on ERA?
7/5/2016 3:55 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by dahsdebater on 7/5/2016 3:55:00 PM (view original):
So for 1970-2016 strikeouts have no impact whatsoever on ERA?
Weird, right? I ran it twice just to make sure I didn't grab the wrong column.
7/5/2016 4:04 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Why are you comparing it to ERA and not actual runs/9?
7/5/2016 4:37 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
Most of the difference between ERA and runs/9 comes from errors, very few of which have anything significant to do with the pitcher. So how would runs/9 be a better reflection of how striking guys out impacts pitcher performance?
7/5/2016 4:57 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Why are you comparing it to ERA and not actual runs/9?
It doesn't make much difference:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.031772737
R Square 0.001009507
Adjusted R Square 0.00020646
Standard Error 0.569554764
Observations 1246

7/5/2016 5:01 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
I guess this makes sense. If it doesn't matter what types of outs a team makes when it's batting, it wouldn't matter what types of outs a team generates when it is pitching.

The rate at which outs are made is what matters.
7/5/2016 5:06 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18996 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 154 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 7/5/2016 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/5/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Why are you comparing it to ERA and not actual runs/9?
It doesn't make much difference:

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.031772737
R Square 0.001009507
Adjusted R Square 0.00020646
Standard Error 0.569554764
Observations 1246

So you're combining three disparate baseball eras (pre-steroid, steroid, and post-steroid) and trying to come to a conclusion?

Your analysis is flawed.
7/5/2016 5:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yeah, he already lost that one.
7/5/2016 5:50 PM
◂ Prev 1...100|101|102|103|104...106 Next ▸
Should KC plunk Bautista because he's a jerk? 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.