tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post8488002375508588851..comments2017-01-20T16:24:08.144-08:00Comments on Cybermetrics: Who Was More "Magical" Than Greg Maddux? (Or Pitcher's HR/BB/SO Rating)Cyril Moronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07148864847009186694noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post-81577839626333731652009-12-07T06:44:27.320-08:002009-12-07T06:44:27.320-08:00"Multiplication would result in Player B havi..."Multiplication would result in Player B having a ranking 8 times that of Player A."<br />Oops! I fell asleep at the wheel at that one, adding Player A's numbers instead of multiplying them. Make that a ranking nearly twice that of Player A (400/225 = 1.78). Still a result that strains credulity and makes my point, but not nearly as deliciously.The Whinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18113750330641458197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post-70581070067968660322009-12-06T20:33:35.816-08:002009-12-06T20:33:35.816-08:00"It would be better to include the ability to..."It would be better to include the ability to induce DPs."<br />Ability to induce DPs is secondary to baserunners allowed, which you have conveniently ignored. In any case, the fact that ANY factor is "not so easy to put together, especially in a nice ranking relative to the league average" has nothing to do with how important that factor that is.<br /><br />It reminds me of the old joke about the physicist, the chemist, and the economist who are lost on a desert island with no tools and nothing to eat but canned food. It ends with the economist opining, "Assume a can opener ..."<br /><br /><br />"The reason I multiply the two #s toghether can best be seen, I think, in another example. Suppose you wanted to measure the joint ability to hit HRs and steal bases. Player A has 20 of each while Player B has 0 HRs and 50 SBs. Adding them together would rank player B higher even though he has no HR ability."<br />Yes, and multiplying them would produce the absurdity that Player B would earn a score of 0. Please don't argue that the numbers should be compared to league averages. I am using your example in exactly the fashion that you did.<br /><br />Let's try another one. Player A has 45 HR and 5 SB, reasonable numbers for a top-tier power hitter. Player B has 10 HR and 40 SBs, a reasonable approximation of Ichiro Suzuki's production. Multiplication would result in Player B having a ranking 8 times that of Player A. Addition would produce equity. The former is absurd. As for the latter, who knows? This goes to my criticism that you weighted the factors equally without justifying that decision.<br /><br />"I have used [FIP ERA] in the past in other studies where I was more interested in measuring a pitcher's value than a particularly narrow skill." And what particularly narrow skill is that, and how accurate is your metric in assessing it? You are begging the question.The Whinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18113750330641458197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post-33726273616251306892009-12-06T16:58:19.843-08:002009-12-06T16:58:19.843-08:00Thanks for dropping by and commenting.
It would b...Thanks for dropping by and commenting.<br /><br />It would be better to include the ability to induce DPs. But how many DPs each pitcher induced divided by the number of opportunities is not so easy to put together, especially in a nice ranking relative to the league average. <br /><br />The reason I multiply the two #s toghether can best be seen, I think, in another example. Suppose you wanted to measure the joint ability to hit HRs and steal bases. Player A has 20 of each while Player B has 0 HRs and 50 SBs. Adding them together would rank player B higher even though he has no HR ability.<br /><br />As for giving them an equal weight, I think that is appropriate here since all I wanted to do was measure this joint ability, not value it. To place values on these things, we might as well use FIP ERA, which gives an appropriate weight to HRs, BBs and SOs. I have used that in the past in other studies where I was more interested in measuring a pitcher's value than a particularly narrow skill.Cyril Moronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07148864847009186694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post-79328249422564390092009-12-06T16:16:07.789-08:002009-12-06T16:16:07.789-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cyril Moronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07148864847009186694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-608528753722196209.post-28119624229954767192009-12-06T14:50:05.208-08:002009-12-06T14:50:05.208-08:00You don't use these words but, using your firs...You don't use these words but, using your first two sentences as a guide, you purport to measure something like <i>how good a pitcher is at preventing home runs while throwing strikes</i>. That explains the oddity of increasing a pitcher's rating based on how poor a strikeout pitcher he was.<br /><br />A pitcher who avoids walks faces fewer batters in an inning. Same goes for a pitcher who avoids baserunners of all kinds. The opposite is true for a pitcher who is successful at inducing double plays. You ignore these additional factors -- the first of the three is actually just a subset of the second -- giving the statistic questionable value as a meaningful metric. You also don't explain the essentially random decision to give each of your three factors equal weight by simply multiplying them, nor why multiplication is superior to addition in achieving a meaningful result. I don't think this statistic measures anything magical.The Whinerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18113750330641458197noreply@blogger.com