Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

PCA Request Line

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

  • 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. That’s 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

    Comment


    • 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. That’s 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

      Comment


      • 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. That’s 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

        Comment


        • 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. That’s 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

          Comment


          • 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. That’s 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

            Comment


            • Oh is that what you wanted?_PCAManifest.pdf

              Comment


              • 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. That’s 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

                Comment


                • Comment


                  • 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, 05:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • 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. That’s 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

                      Comment


                      • 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. That’s 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

                        Comment


                        • Sam Fuld must view Baseball Fever, because he mentions PCA in this post:

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

                          Comment


                          • 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, 06:59 PM. Reason: better wording

                            Comment


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X