tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post8888756732087165083..comments2022-09-01T18:35:28.937-04:00Comments on Walk Like a Sabermetrician: Runs Per Win from Pythagenpatphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-29598647360891340262009-05-13T10:06:00.000-04:002009-05-13T10:06:00.000-04:00So I can use the equation RPW = 2*RPG^.71 for any ...<I>So I can use the equation RPW = 2*RPG^.71 for any run environment and any era?</I>To the extent you'd be comfortable using Pythagenpat for that environment, yes.<br /><br /><I>Why is .28 a better choice?</I>Tango ran some tests (years ago, when we first published Pythagenpat) and found that it was a middle-ground between matching the theoretical results from the Tango Distribution and the real-world data, IIRC. But .28, .29, whatever, is not a huge deal.<br /><br /><I>If it is a better choice, should I use .72 for z?</I>Yes. It'll be one minus whatever exponent you use.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-28346104856738213352009-05-13T04:25:00.000-04:002009-05-13T04:25:00.000-04:00So I can use the equation RPW = 2*RPG^.71 for any ...So I can use the equation RPW = 2*RPG^.71 for any run enviornment and any era?<br /><br />You say: "You'll see values between .27-.29 (.71 to .73 for RPW) used for z, and it is probably true that .28 is a better choice." <br /><br />Why is .28 a better choice? If it is a better choice, should I use .72 for z?terpsfan101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-44643824833351277982009-01-21T23:09:00.000-05:002009-01-21T23:09:00.000-05:00For the sample used in the post, it is 3.974, with...For the sample used in the post, it is 3.974, with the caveat that I am using RPG/9 rather than (R+RA)/inning as the formula calls for.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-30862828233217770642009-01-21T22:44:00.000-05:002009-01-21T22:44:00.000-05:00Do you know the RMSE of Palmer's way of converting...Do you know the RMSE of Palmer's way of converting runs to wins?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-76344818063588788152009-01-19T20:41:00.000-05:002009-01-19T20:41:00.000-05:00No problem.2. Yes, 2*RPG^z is the more advanced mo...No problem.<BR/><BR/>2. Yes, 2*RPG^z is the more advanced model. There's nothing wrong with using .72, so I wouldn't go changing any formulas if I was you.<BR/><BR/>3. There isn't a next level, in terms of a runs per win formula. The next level in sophistication would be to switch from a "smart" differential model like 2*RPG^.72 to a "smart" ratio model like Pythagenpat. And for a large number of questions, that's not practical and not helpful.phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18057215403741682609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12133335.post-68387363560488657252009-01-19T16:52:00.000-05:002009-01-19T16:52:00.000-05:00I apologize in advance for being dense, but:1. I ...I apologize in advance for being dense, but:<BR/><BR/>1. I understand that .75 * RPG + 2.75 is the simplified linear model, but<BR/><BR/>2. If I want a slightly 'more advanced' model, then the answer would be to use 2 * RPG ^ .71? I've actually been using 2 * RPG ^ .72, so that is somewhat comforting.<BR/><BR/>3. I'm confused about what formula would be the 'next' level of more accuracy/less simplicity after 2*RPG^.71. Could you give that formula and walk thru an example for RPG = 2?KJOKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08752319034752774181noreply@blogger.com