Page 88 of 88 FirstFirst ... 3878868788
Results 2,176 to 2,190 of 2190

Thread: PCA Request Line

  1. #2176
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    Post 1918 - Matt goes off the rails when LWF comes back and starts posting. Matt wants all posts to be PCA related.

    (still no formula posted)

    Post 1921 - LWF wants Matt to be more open with his metric, and less defensive when someone asks "what gives?"

    This was not a bit of your post, snipped out of context. It was your entire post. This, after I had the gall & temerity to post in your thread evaluations of pitchers, relief and starter, in the context of thread exchanges on same being currently exchanged.

    NOT A SINGLE WORD in that post recognized either the content of my post, the context in which it was explained or the work that went into it. Nor was there a single syllable that challenged my findings.

    Your post was the post of a total snot, a brat without manners and ultra-defensive of his metric which you later demanded be at the core of all posts here. You ranted in defense of the challenges you faced and the graciousness with which you humbly made adjustments.

    You attempt to deflect my direct observation to you as if I were attacking 2 other posters as your "groupies." I never suggested either was a groupie. Man up. Address the topics at hand, not your own contaminated defenses.


    I think when LWF typed out "man up" I think he meant "post your formula already...."
    Last edited by Second Base Coach; 12-13-2015 at 02:03 PM.
    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

  2. #2177
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    Post 1924 - Matt turns tail when someone challenges his numbers:

    And I am annoyed that you complained about my not staying on topic in a thread about catchers and then you pull the same crap in a thread specifically called the PCA REQUEST LINE and then have the unmitigated gall to act as though you haven't gone off subject.

    The mods can feel free to ban me...because this site is not fun so long as you continue to masquerade as an analyst...the gloves can come off, since I'm done with this crap. Your work is a JOKE...the fact that you cannot see why you're 20 years behind the leading edge in analysis is a sad statement about your own IGNORANCE.

    Good day all. I would ask while you're banning me that you please close this thread so we don't have to see leewiley spouting his garbage and wrecking what had been a fun thread in years past.


    That was directed at LWF, at a time when we were still hoping for the PCA formula. (Rats)
    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. #2178
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    Post 1925 - Leewileyfan states the obvious problem (bottom of page 77):

    I have never dissed PCA. I have stated here that I have attempted to find it.

    I have done Yahoo, Google and blog site searches; and after 8 pages of other headings for "PCA" I gave up.

    After you have attacked me I lost all interest in PCA.

    What about my hard work? You are extremely arrogant. [Report that].
    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

  4. #2179
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    Post 1927 - AstrosFan gives us hope. Once I am allowed to join, perhaps I can confirm:

    Don't fiddle with search engines. All you need to do is join the "baseball databank" Yahoo group. Once you're in, just go to the files section, and scroll until you see the one labeled "PCAManifest.pdf". You can read the entire work, as it was written then though. Matt updates all the time.
    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

  5. #2180
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    Quote Originally Posted by leewileyfan View Post
    Astros Fan:

    Thank you. I followed the procedure and successfully downloaded the PCA Manifest [pdf] file, which I have read.
    Oh my please send this to me...

    JGarrison1309@comcast.net
    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. #2181
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    In conclusion, his metric was reportedly explained and posted in Yahoo groups. I am waiting to join so I can read it myself. It is clear he made adjustments to it just by talking to people in here. That was clear. He gets credit for being flexible, if not forthcoming.

    LWF chased him away, and yet I noticed that LWF did not comment on the math after posting that he finally go a hold of it. I am disappointed in LWF for that very fact.

    Savoy quit after a while, probably growing tired of the bickering. He brings up a lot of good points, but if you don't want to discuss players who played before WW1, Bruce does not have a lot of interest in what you have to say.

    And while I was right in stating the math was never explained here, I was supposed to go find it somewhere else if I really wanted to know. With more posts than Gehrig's consecutive games to sort through, I finally reached that conclusion. And yeah, I read them all.

    So now I wait for access over at Yahoo groups. I can then take a look at PCA. SABR Matt has not posted here in a while, no. So who cares what I think? I will read it anyway as I love this kind of stuff.
    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. #2182
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,570
    Blog Entries
    2
    Oh is that what you wanted?_PCAManifest.pdf

  8. #2183
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    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

  9. #2184
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    17,960

  10. #2185
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,570
    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 05:27 PM.

  11. #2186
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    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

  12. #2187
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Williamsport PA
    Posts
    4,535
    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

  13. #2188
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    17,960
    Sam Fuld must view Baseball Fever, because he mentions PCA in this post:

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

  14. #2189
    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 06:59 PM. Reason: better wording

  15. #2190
    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 11:45 AM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

Page 88 of 88 FirstFirst ... 3878868788

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
  •