OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Jason Moyer · 06-04-2002, 05:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mking55:
Jason, I understand the formulas. I can sit down with pen and paper (if anyone still does that) and calculate them. However, my question is "what makes them valid". In theory, I could come up with a pretty believable theory on how to calculate something. You can get numbers to do your lying for you. I think my question is, reputation aside, what makes his theory valid?<hr /></blockquote>Basically, there are numerous reasons I think it works well (including Bill's reputation of course).

Some of the defensive ideas are really out there, and he doesn't explain everything as well as he should IMHO.

I can follow his logic and I find it to be completely sound as far as the Offensive/Defensive split, the Pitching/Fielding split, and the individual win share claims for hitters and pitchers go.

I also agree with his analysis 100% up to the point where claim percentages for individual fielding positions on a team are figured. He even does a good job, later in the book, of explaining the .52 defense weight that he uses.

Where he loses me, and I'm guessing this is where you're having a problem too, is when he applies weights to the claim percentages at each position - I would assume that if you just divided each of those by the total claim percentages that you would get the correct stake of win shares. However, he multiples the claim percentages by different numbers for each position, based on his own opinion of how fielders should be weighted pre-1930 and post-1930. Basically, he says that all things being equal, a catcher accounts for 19% of a team's defensive worth, a shortstop 18%, and so on. I would like to see where that's coming from...is it an observation he's made? I want to see that statistics that he's basing those weights on. I can't say that I particularly disagree with him, but I want to know where they're coming from.

The individual fielder claims are sketchy too, but at least he explains his methods.

Jason

06-04-2002, 05:20 PM	#18 (permalink)
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 4,527 Thanked 72x in 55 posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by mking55: <strong>Jason, I understand the formulas. I can sit down with pen and paper (if anyone still does that) and calculate them. However, my question is "what makes them valid". In theory, I could come up with a pretty believable theory on how to calculate something. You can get numbers to do your lying for you. I think my question is, reputation aside, what makes his theory valid?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Basically, there are numerous reasons I think it works well (including Bill's reputation of course). Some of the defensive ideas are really out there, and he doesn't explain everything as well as he should IMHO. I can follow his logic and I find it to be completely sound as far as the Offensive/Defensive split, the Pitching/Fielding split, and the individual win share claims for hitters and pitchers go. I also agree with his analysis 100% up to the point where claim percentages for individual fielding positions on a team are figured. He even does a good job, later in the book, of explaining the .52 defense weight that he uses. Where he loses me, and I'm guessing this is where you're having a problem too, is when he applies weights to the claim percentages at each position - I would assume that if you just divided each of those by the total claim percentages that you would get the correct stake of win shares. However, he multiples the claim percentages by different numbers for each position, based on his own opinion of how fielders should be weighted pre-1930 and post-1930. Basically, he says that all things being equal, a catcher accounts for 19% of a team's defensive worth, a shortstop 18%, and so on. I would like to see where that's coming from...is it an observation he's made? I want to see that statistics that he's basing those weights on. I can't say that I particularly disagree with him, but I want to know where they're coming from. The individual fielder claims are sketchy too, but at least he explains his methods. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--'drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming'" -- Henry Waxman