tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post9090189545587492671..comments2024-02-13T06:56:14.486-05:00Comments on Walk Like a Sabermetrician: What is Greatness, or What is Peak?phttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-2271060093961060562007-04-11T15:37:00.000-04:002007-04-11T15:37:00.000-04:00Crap, I got myself all confused there. Anyway, th...Crap, I got myself all confused there. Anyway, this all goes to illustrate that the pennants added methods are not all in agreement, and that even though I feel that is the best framework for evaluating the value of clustered performances, there is still work that needs to be done on those.<BR/><BR/>As to what baseline I would choose for the HOF, it would be the same baseline that I would use to evaluate a player's career value for any question. I have decided to go with WAR in most stuff that I publish just to avoid baseline arguments. Honestly, I have never made up my mind 100% on what baseline to use. I go back and forth from average to chained replacement to multi-tiered to progressive to straight replacement, etc. <BR/><BR/>Comparing to average certainly does benefit the prototypical peak players. I have Sutton beating Koufax 102-65 in WAR but Koufax wins 33-28 in WAA. I stated above that I don't have a firm baseline preference, but I do believe that .500 is the highest possible justifiable baseline for general questions of player value, and so I think the truth at worst for Sutton lies somewhere in between.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-24441269553062691332007-04-11T15:06:00.000-04:002007-04-11T15:06:00.000-04:00Sorry, wasn't clear. What I meant was this:A penn...Sorry, wasn't clear. What I meant was this:<BR/>A pennants-added metric values a very high peak about 20% more than the WAA metric, relative to a merely good performance. If we instead compared the pennant metric to what you get with a replacement-based metric, the "premium" for extremely good performance should be even more than 20% (since, as you say, a replacement baseline minimizes the difference between players). <BR/><BR/>* *<BR/><BR/>BTW, do you favor using a WAA standard, or WAR, for HOF admission? To me, using WAA seems like a backdoor way to introduce the peak concept. Do you agree?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-20706476010468801982007-04-11T14:30:00.000-04:002007-04-11T14:30:00.000-04:00A comparison to WAR shouldn't give a greater ratio...A comparison to WAR shouldn't give a greater ratio, it should give a lesser ratio. Suppose you have two players who each make 300 outs. The league average is .18 r/o and we assume a replacement hits at 75% of that or .135. One guy creates .25 r/o and the other creates .4.<BR/><BR/>RAA(1) = (.25-.18)*300 = +21<BR/>RAA(2) = (.4-.18)*300 = +66<BR/><BR/>RAR(1) = (.25-.135)*300 = +35<BR/>RAR(2) = (.4-.135)*300 = +80<BR/><BR/>The gap in each case is 45 runs, because that is the direct difference between Player 1 and 2. But in the RAR case, we add in the 14 run difference between the replacement player and the avergae player, for each player, diluting the ratio.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-36355677580585696402007-04-11T07:59:00.000-04:002007-04-11T07:59:00.000-04:00In Levitt's article he compares Bench's peak years...In Levitt's article he compares Bench's peak years to the more prosaic years that followed. The ratio of pennants added to wins above average was about 1.2:1. He does another comparison where extreme peak performance is 19% more valuable -- don't remember the details. <BR/><BR/>I suppose that would mean that a comparison to WAR would give you an even greater ratio, maybe something like 1.3:1?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-45459913732470473292007-04-10T23:32:00.000-04:002007-04-10T23:32:00.000-04:00Thanks, David.Guy mentioned that Levitt's method i...Thanks, David.<BR/><BR/>Guy mentioned that Levitt's method in BTN showed that a high peak was valued at 20% more then a good season. I don't know exactly what he was defining those as, but if we say that 10 WAR is a great season and 5 WAR is a good season, we have a 2:1 ratio in WAR but 2.23 in PA. So that's giving around 12%.<BR/><BR/>Going back to Guy's comment<BR/><I>I didn't mean to cast doubt on the pennant-added metrics -- I just haven't looked at them closely enough to have an opinion.</I> <BR/><BR/>I agree that the PA metrics are not a closed case; we should continue to examine those approaches and see which are better, etc. There may even be a lot of room for improvement. But I do think that those kinds of approaches are the "proper" way to credit clustered performance.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-62269338988631020322007-04-10T23:14:00.000-04:002007-04-10T23:14:00.000-04:00Pat, I think the exponent formula was WAR^1.16. Th...Pat, I think the exponent formula was WAR^1.16. That is only for seasonal totals, to be added up to a career total.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-30525176635731571182007-04-10T13:36:00.000-04:002007-04-10T13:36:00.000-04:00Good discussion, Patriot. Since two separate thre...Good discussion, Patriot. Since two separate threads is a pain, I'll limit my comments to Tango's blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-917326065097637032007-04-10T12:16:00.000-04:002007-04-10T12:16:00.000-04:00"The fans get to decide what matters to them, and ..."The fans get to decide what matters to them, and it may not only be team wins"<BR/><BR/>Taking this to it's logical conclusion, if fans decide that they value scrappy white guys who hustle over surly black guys who don't get along well with the media, are we forced to conclude that Pete Rose is a more valuable player then Barry Bonds?<BR/><BR/>If "value" is defined as added team revenue, then maybe this is something you would have to accept. <BR/><BR/>The real issue is that we are using different definitions of value. I have no idea what yours is; mine is that value comes in winning games and pennants. Value in this sense does not depend in any way on perception or revenue or anything else. You can disagree with this definition all you want, but that is how I am using it here, and so all of my comments must be viewed in that light.<BR/><BR/>You say that it's not an "objective sabermetric truth", which is true, I suppose. But the traditional focus of sabermetrics has been to evaluate what leads to wins, losses, and pennants in baseball. Sabermetricians can address the question of what fans value, or what generates revenue for teams, but these are all distinct questions. I don't think that any definition of value that incorporates the subjective valuation of fans or owners or anyone else is particularly enlightening or useful when compared to the standings that they print in black and white every morning.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-79009978355948285942007-04-10T11:23:00.000-04:002007-04-10T11:23:00.000-04:00I didn't mean to cast doubt on the pennant-added m...I didn't mean to cast doubt on the pennant-added metrics -- I just haven't looked at them closely enough to have an opinion. They may well be a big improvement over 5-year, etc. peak calculations. (BTW, looking at Levitt's article, a high peak is valued at about 20% more than a good season -- not a trivial difference.)<BR/><BR/>But our real disagreement lies here: "I can certainly accept that great individual performances may be fun to watch....But if it doesn't have a significantly different real world value, then I just can't care about it when it comes to ranking players." You have decided that "real world value" is different from "fun to watch" (or "exciting"), and have defined the former exclusively in terms of games won. That's fine, but recognize that this is your subjective judgment, not an objective sabermetric truth. ML baseball is a form of entertainment for baseball fans. The fans get to decide what matters to them, and it may not only be team wins (and that is especially true if the question at hand is qualifying for the Hall of Fame). And in fact -- this is an empirical reality -- many fans, writers, and players clearly DO place value on players being the very best at what they do, at a seasonal or even game level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-76431369289405603782007-04-10T10:36:00.000-04:002007-04-10T10:36:00.000-04:00"The pennants added metrics capture some of that, ..."The pennants added metrics capture some of that, but I'm not sure they get all of it."<BR/><BR/>If this is in fact true, then I still don't see it as a justification for these arbitrary criteria like "best 5 years" or "best three consecutive years", etc. If our methods are inadequete, then people should try to develop better ones that model reality better, rather then throw their hands up and start making up criteria with no sabermetic justification whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>I can certainly accept that great individual performances may be fun to watch. Certainly Koufax's career was more exciting then Sutton's. But if it doesn't have a significantly different real world value, then I just can't care about it when it comes to ranking players.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-53186301293922781432007-04-10T05:59:00.000-04:002007-04-10T05:59:00.000-04:00I think there are two fundamental reasons we care ...I think there are two fundamental reasons we care about peak. First, the essential unit of baseball is the season. We care much more about winning divisions, pennants, and WS than how many wins our team averaged over a 10 or 15-year period. A high peak performance makes those kind of successful seasons more likely. The pennants added metrics capture some of that, but I'm not sure they get all of it. <BR/><BR/>Second, sports fans value individual excellence. Team wins are the single most important thing, but not the only thing we care about. We admire players who are the very best at what they do, and enjoy watching them demonstrate their skill. We admire a no-hitter more than a shutout. Both games were wins, but does that make the performances equal? Most of us would say no. <BR/><BR/>It really comes down to being the best (or one of the best). And that means the best in one or more SEASONS. We end up talking about 5- or 7-year peaks because one season isn't quite enough to prove anything, while career measures lost sight of the individual seasons that comprise our baseball-enjoying experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-36868194238711032232007-04-09T18:54:00.000-04:002007-04-09T18:54:00.000-04:00Tango has posted his definition of greatness, and ...Tango has posted his definition of greatness, and why it matters:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/koufax_or_sutton_who_was_greater/" REL="nofollow">here</A>phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-79250086917256323442007-04-09T18:52:00.000-04:002007-04-09T18:52:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-76957770341652444262007-04-09T01:07:00.000-04:002007-04-09T01:07:00.000-04:00David, do you remember what you came up with as th...David, do you remember what you came up with as the approximate exponent?<BR/><BR/>That's good info, though, and shows that even in extreme cases, it's tough to make up ground by looking at pennants.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-9764893120011205762007-04-07T16:55:00.000-04:002007-04-07T16:55:00.000-04:00I remember several years ago devising an exponent ...I remember several years ago devising an exponent method to approximate pennants added. When I applied it to Koufax and Sutton, it reduced the impact of Sutton's 63% edge in WAR to (the relative impact of) *only* a 54% edge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com