Page 110 of 110 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110
Results 2,181 to 2,189 of 2189

Thread: PCA Request Line

  1. #2181
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Oh is that what you wanted?_PCAManifest.pdf

  2. #2182
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,660
    No, what I wanted was to go back and read all 2000+ posts (because I wanted to say that I did) and check to see if the metric was ever posted here, and like I suspected, it was NOT.

    I also wanted to see why Matt left. Maybe. I think we have a good idea.

    The only thing that disappointed me was LWF finally got a hold of the file and then failed to follow up with a post on his opinion of the metric.

    That was a big let-down.

    Thank you for the link. I will check that out later this evening.
    Your Second Base Coach
    Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. Thatís equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  3. #2183
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,594

  4. #2184
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,506
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    No, what I wanted was to go back and read all 2000+ posts (because I wanted to say that I did) and check to see if the metric was ever posted here, and like I suspected, it was NOT.

    I also wanted to see why Matt left. Maybe. I think we have a good idea.

    The only thing that disappointed me was LWF finally got a hold of the file and then failed to follow up with a post on his opinion of the metric.

    That was a big let-down.

    Thank you for the link. I will check that out later this evening.
    Matt was a young guy going through college at the time. Like a lot of people life got busier, things happened, he moved on. He basically left right when he was starting his graduate studies. He eventually also found time to intern with the Yankees for almost a year. He also at around the time he left tried his hand at writing for various baseball sites and I believe at least initially found a forum that was more receptive to his ideas and a community that had more focus on the study of analytics.

    Currently he's working on trying to startup a baseball analytics website.
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 12-13-2015 at 06:27 PM.

  5. #2185
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Matt was a young guy going through college at the time. Like a lot of people life got busier, things happened, he moved on. He basically left right when he was starting his graduate studies. He eventually also found time to intern with the Yankees for almost a year. He also at around the time he left tried his hand at writing for various baseball sites and I believe at least initially found a forum that was more receptive to his ideas and a community that had more focus on the study of analytics.

    Currently he's working on trying to startup a baseball analytics website.
    Thank you for the reply!
    Your Second Base Coach
    Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. Thatís equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  6. #2186
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,660
    Another thread, going back a ways....

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...-is-it-exactly
    Your Second Base Coach
    Garvey, Lopes, Russell, and Cey started 833 times and the Dodgers went 498-335, for a .598 winning percentage. Thatís equal to a team going 97-65 over a season. On those occasions when at least one of them missed his start, the Dodgers were 306-267-1, which is a .534 clip. That works out to a team going 87-75. So having all four of them added 10 wins to the Dodgers per year.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5hCIvMule0

  7. #2187
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    18,594
    Sam Fuld must view Baseball Fever, because he mentions PCA in this post:

    http://hallofverygood.com/root/15hov...tt-butler.html

  8. #2188
    Quote Originally Posted by Second Base Coach View Post
    No, what I wanted was to go back and read all 2000+ posts (because I wanted to say that I did) and check to see if the metric was ever posted here, and like I suspected, it was NOT.

    I also wanted to see why Matt left. Maybe. I think we have a good idea.

    The only thing that disappointed me was LWF finally got a hold of the file and then failed to follow up with a post on his opinion of the metric.

    That was a big let-down.

    Thank you for the link. I will check that out later this evening.
    I just dropped by to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Lo and behold, I'm being mentioned in a thread. Not unkindly [thank you]
    but kind of having a complaint lodged against me for not sharing my personal reactions to another poster's metric.

    That deserves a response. I won't make it long [heck, I'm even older now than I was back then].

    1.The main reason I didn't respond in a way that would evaluate that metric was that the author of that metric was so wrapped up
    in his own scientific credentials and curriculum vitae relative to probabilities and regression models, that any critique I might
    render might have me defending my own qualifications even to do so. As I recall, my biggest complaint was not so much the metric
    itself, but they way in which it was presented. Fielding or pitching presented numerically as a visual more commonly identified with
    hitting, for example, just [for me] muddies the water.

    2. This proprietary-elite ego and mind-set CAN lead to the conclusion that the only people who are entitled to a MEANINGFUL entry into evaluative
    discussion or debate are those with math majors [or impressive minors] who are dedicated to regression analysis. Any discussion, in that
    climate, assumes an exclusionary posture. I believe that devotees of such a rigid platform ultimately deprive themselves of valuable input
    from those they consider "outsiders."

    3. This is no humble confession of mathematical incompetence. It has been ages since I had to do any work of any depth, calculating
    standard deviations and/or plotting scatter charts. My approach has always been to observe the broadest aspects of the game, then
    gradually focus on nuances that MIGHT be meaningful. For example, my own defense metric, which is lying quietly on a shelf now, looked
    at the Game from 1901 through the present. Player, ball, glove, glove design, ball duration in game, day or night ball, grounds keeping,
    playing surface, ball liveliness, bat design, batted ball speed and distance covered. The, each position a fiefdom with its own unique
    expectations. The challenge? Enormous. But fun. Assumptions made as to batted ball distributions. But then, there are batted balls AND
    possible multi-position involvements after the ball is in play. I always held: for a defense metric to be worth its salt, it must address
    each position as unique.
    When a regression of some sort is required, there are programs for that purpose. NOTE: Knowing how to
    perform advanced mathematical exercises is one thing. Knowing when to call them to the tasl [properly] is often another matter.

    4. The metric is on the shelf simply because I am too darn old to go through all the vetting, debating, and tedious procedures demanded in
    order to get published. [Came close in 2004 but that blew away in the winds of head-of-agency changes].

    So, Happy New Year, all. I hope this serves as an acceptable response.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 01-13-2016 at 07:59 PM. Reason: better wording

  9. #2189
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    I just dropped by to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Lo and behold, I'm being mentioned in a thread. Not unkindly [thank you]
    but kind of having a complaint lodged against me for not sharing my personal reactions to another poster's metric.

    So, Happy New Year, all. I hope this serves as an acceptable response.
    Nice reading the reply and happy new year to you as well.

    Many worthwhile words of wisdom in your post. It doesn't need to be said, and you know it already, but since the dawn of time, it's always been far, far easier to complain about an ark, a painting, a cake, or an analytical formula than to make one your self. Those who create or attempt to create and perhaps fall a tad short, need no explanation.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 01-14-2016 at 12:45 PM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

Page 110 of 110 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •