Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BA and OPS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
    Anyone care to chip in with LWTS or BsR or some other metric?
    Here are base runs (BsR). I use Smyth's basic basic formula, as I do not have stolen base data.

    Edit: Oops, I just noticed on Tangotiger's wiki that base runs are A team run estimator. To estimate for individuals, you supply an actual or theoretical (e.g. all average) team and compare results with and without the player's BsR input. Sorry, but learned something.

    A 138
    M 133
    H 122
    L 119
    J 116
    K 116
    E 114
    F 111
    G 103
    I 103
    C 100
    B 99
    D. 86
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 02-25-2012, 12:55 AM.
    Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

    Comment


    • #47
      I worked out LWTS. This too was a re-learning process, in that I copied the formulas, rechecked the inputs and weightings and applied the data into a spreadsheet. Then I puzzled over HOW the final runs numbers could be so low.

      Head-slap: LWTS is designed to estimate RUNS ABOVE average. That called for a review of AVERAGE for the year in question, which calculated to ,1213 runs created per plate appearance. A full-time player with 600 PA would [on average] "create" 72.78 runs. Rather than use a fixed figure, I applied the .1213 factor to the actual PA for each player. Then, adding LWTS to the RC base, I got a LWTS calculation of RC for each. The results:

      M. 135.5
      A. 133.2
      H. 127.9
      K. 119.2
      L. 117.5
      J. 116.8
      F. 114.6
      E. 112.1
      I. 108.5
      G. 107.4
      B. 105.1
      C. 100.6
      D. 95.6
      Last edited by leewileyfan; 02-25-2012, 12:14 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Tango has a chart of custom linear weights by team and year based on BsR at his website for those curious about that.

        Comment


        • #49
          Just to round out the evaluation data with yet another consideration, I took LWTS [measures run creation ABOVE AVERAGE], here's how the thirteen players fare against league average for the season. [To convert to "wins" divide by 10].

          A. 59.2
          M. 57.5
          H. 51.6
          K. 44.6
          I. 40.8
          J. 37.6
          B. 34.8
          G. 30.7
          F. 29.3
          I. 29.3 [rounding]
          E. 28.2
          D. 27.0
          B. 22.4

          Comment


          • #50
            OK and thanks to those who posted. This sampling and discussion need not end with this post, because in revealing the year and the players involved, anyone interested in pursuing evaluation metrics further can look up the statistical line for each player and have the full input values at hand.

            The year was 1941, and the players were all from the American League.

            A. Charlie Keller
            B. Taft Wright
            C. Ken Keltner
            D. Barney McCosky
            E. Rudy York
            F. Harlond Clift
            G. Walt Judnich
            H. Roy Cullenbine
            I. Buddy Lewis
            J. Bob Johnson
            K. Joe Cronin
            L. Tommy Henrich
            M. Jeff Heath

            Comment


            • #51
              Good stuff LWF, and very interesting posts by everyone. I am surprised at the results between King Kong & Heath.

              Comment


              • #52
                Thanks, J-J and to all who posted. Speaking of King Kong and Heath, they were quite an exciting pair of players to watch at the plate. Both were built for compact power and both generated fearsome swipes at the ball.

                I recall a ballgame at Yankee Stadium where a brawl broke out and concentrated in a heap out by the pitching mound. During the brawl, Joe DiMaggio and Charlie Keller, in the outfield, meandered over toward each other and passed some time in conversation. I kind of nudged my Dad asking why they were staying so out-of-the fight.

                My father answered to the effect that, at least as Charlie Keller was concerned, it was probably good for the health and safety of the brawlers that Keller was keeping the peace.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
                  The model is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The guy with the highest BA is presumed to have the same OB% and SLG and the guy batting around .190. One can create an arithmetic model to suit and point under debate.

                  In the context of recent remarks posted here, I tried to construct a reasonable pair of batters with very comparable stats OTHER than their respective BAs, which, in themselves are fairly well apart but not so extreme as to forbid reasonable comparisons.

                  Player "Visitor" posts these numbers:

                  AB 600
                  H 162
                  BA .270
                  HR 30
                  3B 0
                  2B 18
                  1B 114
                  BB 73
                  TB 270

                  Player "Home" puts up these numbers:

                  AB 600
                  Hits 198
                  BA .330
                  HR 12
                  3B 4
                  2B 29
                  1B 152
                  BB 37
                  TB 270

                  The hour grows late, so I penalized Home a single. There is nothing in the figures that would indicate DPs batted into by either player. One has 48 extra base hits; the other 45. The big disparity would seem to be HRs; but hen the question is legitimately raised WHEN and under what circumstances game/conditions each of those 18 big hits were belted. In a full season, there's enough random chance in PA where 18 "bombs" may not be all that telling, especially when the trailer is collecting 36 more hits on his side of the ledger.
                  A problem in your model is that you gave them the same number of at bats. They should have the same number of plate appearances probably, (or for a team, outs).

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by dominik View Post
                    I would say even in a very wrong environment linear weights are still a lot more precise than the SLG coefficients. the value of a double might change from .7 to .75 but it never has twice the value of a single.

                    I think it is pretty safe to say that if SLG is equal the guy with the higher BA and lower ISO will produce more.
                    Remember that the higher BA lower ISO guy will also have to draw more walks to keep his OB% the same.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by brett View Post
                      A problem in your model is that you gave them the same number of at bats. They should have the same number of plate appearances probably, (or for a team, outs).
                      I posted that a while back; so I won't deny it may have been an oversight on my part. What interested posters MIGHT want to is to look at BOTH players from two perspectives:

                      1. exactly as presented in the original model; OR
                      2. by adding TPA into the equation, with Visitor having 673 total plate appearances, and Home having 637 TPA

                      #2 would make their BA "profiles" equivalent, with AB and Hits preserved.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
                        I posted that a while back; so I won't deny it may have been an oversight on my part. What interested posters MIGHT want to is to look at BOTH players from two perspectives:
                        1. exactly as presented in the original model; OR
                        2. by adding TPA into the equation, with Visitor having 673 total plate appearances, and Home having 637 TPA
                        #2 would make their BA "profiles" equivalent, with AB and Hits preserved.
                        "Interested" in what, exactly? IIRC, we started out trying to investigate whether two players with identical OPS(+) could be ranked by BA. So that means, to me, at any rate, they have to enter the comparison with the same initial assets. Since outs are the medium of exchange for runs, a comparison that doesn't hold outs constant is giving one player a hidden advantage, run inflation if you will, since he's paying more for his productivity.

                        In Leewileyfan's Home-Visitor example, the visitor comes into the comparison with a bonus of 36 extra outs. Before I (anyhow) can compare them, I have to figure out to to restore this disparity to equity.

                        I can see the point of holding PA's constant, as each represents an opportunity to do something. But if you have two batters putting the same number of runs on the board in the same number of PA's but one using more outs, well, he's consuming more of the team's assets, so they aren't starting off even.

                        The initial poster was very careful to make PA, outs, OB, SLG, OPS come out even and let the difference in batting average drive the other differences: ISOP, hits, and walks. As far as I can tell, it seemed that there just wasn't that much wiggle room left, and the difference in ISOP (more efficient use of total bases) more or less balanced out the difference between a walk and a single (greater runner advancement for the latter)--in this particular case.

                        Or did I miss something?
                        Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 03-14-2012, 05:16 PM.
                        Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
                          "Interested" in what, exactly? IIRC, we started out trying to investigate whether two players with identical OPS(+) could be ranked by BA. So that means, to me, at any rate, they have to enter the comparison with the same initial assets. Since outs are the medium of exchange for runs, a comparison that doesn't hold outs constant is giving one player a hidden advantage, run inflation if you will, since he's paying more for his productivity.
                          As I read the thread, starting at Post #1, the concepts of evaluating individual inputs of batting performance were being weighed, considering the relative merits of BA, OBP, OPS and OPS+. The initial poster suggested the value of BA as a tie-breaker.

                          Since BA and OBP [and related spin-offs] have different denominators BA and OBP], then the fixity of disparate elements being perfectly equal, kind of restricts the scope of testing the data.

                          : In Leewileyfan's Home-Visitor example, the visitor comes into the comparison with a bonus of 36 extra outs. Before I (anyhow) can compare them, I have to figure out to to restore this disparity to equity.
                          I made the batters comparable, as they certainly are in the critical areas of ABs and Total Bases. The other data are variables, conforming only to the limits of AB and Total Bases.

                          :The initial poster was very careful to make PA, outs, OB, SLG, OPS come out even and let the difference in batting average drive the other differences: ISOP, hits, and walks. As far as I can tell, it seemed that there just wasn't that much wiggle room left, and the difference in ISOP (more efficient use of total bases) more or less balanced out the difference between a walk and a single (greater runner advancement for the latter)--in this particular case.
                          As I read the thread, the INITIAL poster [Joltin' Joe] made no such restrictions. He introduced a premise of comparability [not exactitude] and SUGGESTED the possible key role of BA as "tiebreaker," if such were needed.

                          Or did I miss something?[/QUOTE]

                          When I alluded to "interested" posters, I was suggesting that the thread MIGHT benefit from various POV and varied perspectives on what sabermetric value formulas different posters might want to apply. I even suggested that one might want to modify the model exactly to his/her liking before applying the math.

                          My own quick evaluation is that the Visitor model will create 92.6 runs. The Home model will create 100.7 runs. Essentially this is the shortcut RC formula that uses TB + BB * BA. This is at least consistent with the original poster's view that BA might make a good tie breaker. [POST 21 of this thread provides the model to which I am referring].
                          Last edited by leewileyfan; 03-15-2012, 09:54 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Leewileyfan,

                            First I want to say that on re-reading, my post seemed a lot brusquer and less civil than I'd intended. I'm sorry; it's a weakness. Frustration with a problem appears as if frustration with the reader.

                            I did as you suggested and looked through the figures, and I think I can express my problem more clearly and succinctly:

                            The Visitor reaches base in 235/673 plate appearances, for an on base average of .350. The Home player reaches in 235/637 plate appearances, for an on base average of .370.

                            Using your data and MLB 2011 OB, SLG figures, Visitor has an unadjusted ops+ of 1.22, Home of 1.28.

                            Hence my point that the two players aren't comparable--in the sense that their productivity is visibly different at the beginning. So I'd say that there's nor role for BA as a tie breaker, because there is no tie.

                            Using 2011 WOBA, I get .352 for visitor and .359 for home.

                            Using Bill James's Runs Created for Dummmies formula, Visitor has about 94 runs created, Home about 100 (no real difference from your finding).
                            Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
                              As I read the thread, the INITIAL poster [Joltin' Joe] made no such restrictions. He introduced a premise of comparability [not exactitude] and SUGGESTED the possible key role of BA as "tiebreaker," if such were needed.

                              Or did I miss something?
                              I think Dave might have been referring to this thread => http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...hitter-and-why

                              That thread and this thread kind of got mixed up. I never created this thread. This thread was "created" by a mod that felt the stat discussion deviated too much from the original thread about Dwight Evans. He deleted the discussion portion of that thread and moved it over here, which is the thread you see here. Nonetheless, regardless of the origin, it has turned into an interesting discussion.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                yes and yes.
                                Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X