Hypothetically Speaking...

[Villain]

For the record, here are the numbers I lean on the most:

Pitchers:
K%
BB%
K-BB%
Batted-Ball Velocity
Spin rates (if I can find them)
BABIP/FIP
GB%/LD%/FB%
HR/FB
SIERA and/or ERA-
IP or TBF

Batters:
K%
BB%
Batted-Ball Velocity
OBP/SLG/OPS/ISO
OPS+
BABIP
wOBA
wRC+
PA

The numbers that get plugged in are all empirical, with the exception that league-average constants are also included in the equations of the "w" or "+/-" stats. Still, the numbers that make one player's SIERA or wOBA good or bad are 100% based on the events that actually happened on the field. They aren't "theoretical" in the sense that they are trying to tell you what will happen in the future. They are generated using "real" numbers from what the players have actually done.

How often do you see a pitcher do JUST enough to win, or JUST enough to lose?? sometimes these stats just show the intangibles...

I was at Dodger Stadium for Kenley Jansen's first Win of the year. It came in the same inning as his first blown save of the year.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@Villain - how do you like this homemade stat i have... It is a variation of wOBA...

(BB+1.75(1B)+2.5(2B)+3.25(3B)+4(HR)+.5(SF)+.5(bunts)+.75(SB)-1(CS)-.05(Ks)-DP)/PA

i call this percent theoretical runs responsible, or TRR%

 

[Villain]

How does it work when you put it into practice? The proof is in the pudding.

Also, how did you figure your constants and what kinda bunts do you include? Why is everything divided by plate appearances? What's theoretical about it? Why do you call your stat a percentage when you don't use any percentages or end with a percentage?

Are you just trolling?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

How does it work when you put it into practice? The proof is in the pudding.

Also, how did you figure your constants and what kinda bunts do you include? Why is everything divided by plate appearances? What's theoretical about it? Why do you call your stat a percentage when you don't use any percentages or end with a percentage?

Are you just trolling?

The constants are easy, -1 per extra out created(double play and CS)

1 point for getting on base, then an extra .75 per type of hit

.75 for SB, because a single with a SB is pretty much the same as a double

.5 for bunts and SF because I wanted to keep the formula simple by only using a base of .25, AND these ABs players clearly have different goals when AB, It should not hurt their overall statistics...

strike outs are the only number that looks a little arbitrary... But only mathematically only 1/2 of SOs matter( 1/3 of someones total should be with 2 outs, and 1/4 should be with no body on base- by using simple math,
1/3-1/12+1/4=1/2... then assuming that that 1/4 that should be with nobody on base is in reality lopsided towards nobody on base I rounded it up closer to 2/3 of SO don't matter(any more than a normal out).

Then taking 1/3 that mattered and giving it a weight of 1/5 I got 1/15, but since I wanted every number to be rounded to the nearest 5th, I rounded it to .05...

As to the percentage... should have said average...


But my biggest problem with wOBA is that there are no constants, and the coefficients change year to year... Also, the coefficients are not easy numbers to look at or calculate... Part of what makes a great stat a great stat is the easiness of use by the person using the stat... A stat that you need to look up is not a great stat, and keeping numbers easy is the first step for a great stat...

My problem with slugging percentage is that it over evaluates for HRs... This stat there is less of a difference between a HR and a single...

Like I said, I create my own stats... This is my new little baby... I think it is superior to wOBA.

 

[Villain]

But my biggest problem with wOBA is that there are no constants, and the coefficients change year to year... Also, the coefficients are not easy numbers to look at or calculate... Part of what makes a great stat a great stat is the easiness of use by the person using the stat... A stat that you need to look up is not a great stat, and keeping numbers easy is the first step for a great stat...

Well the constants in wOBA change on an annual basis because park factors and the hitting environment change on an annual basis. MLB in 2015 and MLB in 1999 are not the same.

Like I said, I create my own stats... This is my new little baby... I think it is superior to wOBA.

Honestly, it looks almost the same, but you just arbitrarily changed the values of the coefficients.

Also, you didn't answer my first (and most important) question - how well does your formula work when put into practice?

I'm really hung up on the name as well. Theoretical runs responsible? Your formula doesn't spit out a quantity of runs. It's an average. No offense, but the whole thing seems bogus. It's like you're intentionally not using wOBA because you just don't want to look it up. It's a hell of a lot easier to google someone's wOBA than it is to plug in everyone's numbers yourself. I'm not sure why you think your stat is better. Shouldn't you be testing it out and comparing the results against wOBA and then have a reason to think that yours is more accurate or something? Using static coefficients annually is all it takes to make you formula better?

Hey, whatever floats your boat. I've never attempted to do that, so I'm not trying to tear you down. Just telling you what I think since you asked.

 

[Villain]

And one reason that will always make wOBA better than your stat is that you're averaging by total plate appearances, while wOBA doesn't include intentional walks. Getting walked intentionally isn't in the hitter's control so the hitter shouldn't be getting as much credit for IBB as they do for uBB.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Well the constants in wOBA change on an annual basis because park factors and the hitting environment change on an annual basis. MLB in 2015 and MLB in 1999 are not the same.


Honestly, it looks almost the same, but you just arbitrarily changed the values of the coefficients.

Also, you didn't answer my first (and most important) question - how well does your formula work when put into practice?

I'm really hung up on the name as well. Theoretical runs responsible? Your formula doesn't spit out a quantity of runs. It's an average. No offense, but the whole thing seems bogus. It's like you're intentionally not using wOBA because you just don't want to look it up. It's a hell of a lot easier to google someone's wOBA than it is to plug in everyone's numbers yourself.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Well it is about runs created, That is what baseball is all about... THe more you are on base the more you CAN score... If you advance yourself further do to bigger hit or SB, then you have more of a chance to score... That is the whole purpose of this... Also, the bigger the hit the better chances of you getting RBIs... So a higher TRR(my name for the stat), the better chances of scoring, and the higher chances of scoring in someone...

Truth be told, OBP is actually one of the best measures and is intended to measure theoretical runs...

And why is it bogus?? because I don't like to rely on other people to make my own statistics??? that is a very bogus way of looking at it...

And honestly, it is very easy to make your own stats... you just throw the RAW data(singles, doubles, triples, HR, PA, walks, etc...) into an excel worksheet and then manipulate it the way you weigh things...

Again, a stat like wOBA will never get its due, because it is a calculation that always changes and the numbers are difficult to understand... Blindly trusting stats just because someone that claims they know what they are doing is not a good thing, and really that is my biggest problem with many advanced stats... I just don't agree with the weights, and they are to difficult to calculate yourself since there is no pattern...

I am at least attempting to put in an easy to follow pattern to do similar things as the advanced stats you love... And because I am actually doing my own statistics it fits my values better than any other stat... If you want to be such a stat guy and look at all these stats you really need to understand the stats that are given...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

And one reason that will always make wOBA better than your stat is that you're averaging by total plate appearances, while wOBA doesn't include intentional walks. Getting walked intentionally isn't in the hitter's control so the hitter shouldn't be getting as much credit for IBB as they do for uBB.

that is certainly something I could fiddle around with, since I do agree with that to an extent...

 

[Villain]

And why is it bogus?? because I don't like to rely on other people to make my own statistics??? that is a very bogus way of looking at it...

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words.

Again, a stat like wOBA will never get its due, because it is a calculation that always changes and the numbers are difficult to understand... Blindly trusting stats just because someone that claims they know what they are doing is not a good thing, and really that is my biggest problem with many advanced stats... I just don't agree with the weights, and they are to difficult to calculate yourself since there is no pattern...

I'm not blindly trusting them. I make an effort to try and understand what goes into them. I'm just an average sports fan who is trying to find better answers in my spare time. No, I don't understand them intimately and I would never consider myself an expect. I do, however, feel that I have enough of a basic grasp on the stats that I use that I feel comfortable using them in my own basic way.

I also don't think it's very hard to find the constants - they are right here.

I am at least attempting to put in an easy to follow pattern to do similar things as the advanced stats you love... And because I am actually doing my own statistics it fits my values better than any other stat... If you want to be such a stat guy and look at all these stats you really need to understand the stats that are given...

Kudos to you for trying. I'm not a lover of plugging and chugging around in spreadsheets. When I was on track for a business degree, I wanted to stab myself in the eye once I had to start taking accounting courses.

You're right that I have to put a bit of faith into the authors of these formulas when I'm use the stats that they spit out. But, I'm just a fan and these guys have a passion for getting the best numbers possible. Perhaps you're debating the wrong person?

Also, still waiting to hear about the results of your formula. How does it hold up?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

OK got the results, and I added the IBB and HBB separation...

1. Harper-.838
2. Jose Bautista- .792
3. Josh Donaldson-.780
4. Edwin encarnacion-.733
5. Chris davis- .733
14. Mike Trout-.666

As you can see this is not adjusted per team yet... and of course it does not take into account defense or defensive postions...

One reason why trout is so low is because he has 7 CS and 11 DPs that is 18 extra outs... that ranked as the 13th worst from the 50 players I took...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

goldy was 6th, votto 7th, and Bryant 8th...

 

[Villain]

Interesting results, especially since it ranks so many guys ahead of Trout who are clearly behind him according to pretty much every other stat out there. Does it have weird outliers like that for all the other years that you've plugged in the numbers for?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Interesting results, especially since it ranks so many guys ahead of Trout who are clearly behind him according to pretty much every other stat out there. Does it have weird outliers like that for all the other years that you've plugged in the numbers for?

I am still looking to improve it since I do see that just like OPS and slugging it still overvalues the power hitter...
But with that said, nelson Cruz is still 27th... and cargo is 20th...

The biggest outlier I see is Miggy... He is ranked 23rd, but again that is because he has 19 EXTRA OUTS(CS+DP), and he only has 17 HRs this season...

 

[DragonfromTO]

OK got the results, and I added the IBB and HBB separation...

1. Harper-.838
2. Jose Bautista- .792
3. Josh Donaldson-.780
4. Edwin encarnacion-.733
5. Chris davis- .733
14. Mike Trout-.666

As you can see this is not adjusted per team yet... and of course it does not take into account defense or defensive postions...

One reason why trout is so low is because he has 7 CS and 11 DPs that is 18 extra outs... that ranked as the 13th worst from the 50 players I took...

Gotta check more than 50 players (over more than one season). The real test for a stat isn't whether or not the best players score the highest (and the worst players score the lowest), it's how the huge number of players in the middle are treated. Unless the coefficients are completely backwards or something you're always going to have Babe Ruth scoring high and Billy Bergen scoring low. The good stats are the ones that sort the guys in the middle properly.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Gotta check more than 50 players (over more than one season). The real test for a stat isn't whether or not the best players score the highest (and the worst players score the lowest), it's how the huge number of players in the middle are treated. Unless the coefficients are completely backwards or something you're always going to have Babe Ruth scoring high and Billy Bergen scoring low. The good stats are the ones that sort the guys in the middle properly.

I agree, but I am still in beginner mode with this Stat, I first need to make sure it measures the better players accurately, since those are the players that we actually know...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

OK got the results, and I added the IBB and HBB separation...

1. Harper-.838
2. Jose Bautista- .792
3. Josh Donaldson-.780
4. Edwin encarnacion-.733
5. Chris davis- .733
14. Mike Trout-.666

As you can see this is not adjusted per team yet... and of course it does not take into account defense or defensive postions...

One reason why trout is so low is because he has 7 CS and 11 DPs that is 18 extra outs... that ranked as the 13th worst from the 50 players I took...

OOPS... I had the wrong column linked to the formula... THat list is not correct...

 

[Villain]

OOPS... I had the wrong column linked to the formula... THat list is not correct...

LOL. I wondered why you had such huge numbers.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I agree, but I am still in beginner mode with this Stat, I first need to make sure it measures the better players accurately, since those are the players that we actually know...

How are you evaluating whether or not it's doing that? And I'm not sure why it makes a difference whether or not we "know" the players if it's just the numbers that we're using/evaluating.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

the real list...

1. Harper
2. Votto
3. Cruz
4. Goldy
5. Donaldson
6. Trout
7. Pollock
8. Miggy
9. David Peralta
10. Michael Brantley...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

How are you evaluating whether or not it's doing that? And I'm not sure why it makes a difference whether or not we "know" the players if it's just the numbers that we're using/evaluating.

What I meant, is that i was only doing a quick glance just to see if it MAY work... When i actually have the time and fix things i will do the FULL check...