tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post3302717068719194811..comments2024-02-13T06:56:14.486-05:00Comments on Walk Like a Sabermetrician: Evaluating Pitcher Winning %, Pt. 3phttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-39307383144209245392006-11-02T00:24:00.000-05:002006-11-02T00:24:00.000-05:00Over at the Inside the Book Blog, Tango points out...Over at the Inside the Book Blog, Tango points out something that I overlooked, but concur on: that over the course of a career, we should expect the offense/defense split to approach equality. In fact, he points out that the range in actual off/def split for the population of pitchers with long careers would probably not be far removed from the distribution of park factors for these pitchers. <br /><br />Anyway, I made the unrelated point in my post there that the Oliver method should be retired. It is only natural to simply compare pitcher W% to Mate, but if you just sit down and consider the assumption that you are making by doing this, you will see that it is going to be misleading more often then not. I think this is just a case of people not thinking about what they are doing--I would be surprised if there were a sizeable number of people who would argue against the Wood assumptions (at least as an alternative to the Oliver assumptions).<br /><br />Additionally, the Wood approach is very simple and tracks the more precise Pythagorean approach very well. I see no reason to use the Oliver or Deane approaches if you are going to do this type of analysis.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.com