Suggestions

Forum >> Suggestions >> Reduce SB weighting on awards  

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function
#33170	04/10/2016 8:57:08 am		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I used the actual formula. I wonder which of us is more accurate. The actual formula, or Mike estimating a number in his head that is favorable for his argument? Hmm... 90 SB shouldn't be ignored. Neither should 1.100 OPS. You are way overvaluing SB just to be argumentative. Updated Sunday, April 10 2016 @ 8:58:19 am PDT
#33182	04/10/2016 12:40:47 pm		Ignore
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Adding total bases is fiction, though. You're changing a player's slugging percentage by a lot without changing his OBP. A more realistic approach would be to increase his production by a small amount across the board instead of making his slugging soar. 2 walks, 7 more hits with 12 total bases (or something along those lines) would be much more likely given his actual stats. And before you say it, yes, this is fiction, too, it just happens to be a more likely scenario. Besides, your method would hurt your defense more because he would hit more homers your way, increasing his likelihood of winning the MVP. You choose to ignore the fact that in both of your examples the players had similar offensive production. Either could win. Even your real life example of Donaldson and Trout demonstrates that. Trout was better, right? But he didn't win. That happens some times. There was no injustice with Donaldson winning. He had a great season. Some one has to win; everyone else has to lose. As I said before, if defensive position isn't a part of the calculation here, I think that's a mistake AND there's a small weighting issue with voting. Also as I said before, my guess is if that's the case the error is probably in not penalizing CS enough, instead of rewarding SB too much. Say whatever you want now. I'm done. The impact of this on the game is almost zero anyway. Updated Sunday, April 10 2016 @ 12:44:44 pm PDT
#33183	04/10/2016 12:43:46 pm		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Good. Glad your done. I'm tired of your pointless droning. I do still think its hilarious that you think 1.049 OPS is "similar" to 0.937. LOL
#33200	04/10/2016 5:09:30 pm		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I thought you were done... Stop pestering me with PMs on this topic.
#33204	04/10/2016 6:16:56 pm
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	Right now, there is a shift going on where sabermetrics/WAR is becoming a bigger part of player comparison. Probably five years ago and before, statistics like Wins and RBIs were huge determinants in MVP, All-Star and Cy Young voting. Now some discount those stats as highly questionable in some people’s mind and they are using more advanced statistics. However, many/most still seem to weight them heavily. Statistically like walks and OBP weren’t really that important (except maybe for leadoff hitters). In terms of Stolen Bases, I think it keeps evolving. To some degree, people have used stolen bases as an overall speed/base runner metric (because there wasn’t anything else) and tended to overweight it a bit. When the steroid/home run crazy era hit, stolen bases and small ball just wasn’t as valued as before. In term of Caught Stealing, I think stealing percentage is something that has more recently become important sabermetrically, but I’m not sure about mainstream. It’s a bit like in basketball -- if a guy scores 20 ppg, nobody seems to question what his FG percentage is (although they should). But there are a lot more NBA all-stars who are 20 ppg volume scorers than 12 ppg efficient scorers, right? So, should the MVP voting be based on sabermetric values or an approximation of how MVPs are normally selected? Steve
#33206	04/10/2016 6:21:30 pm
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	Honestly, I think the biggest factor that isn’t accounted for in the MVP voting (and Cy Young award to a lesser degree), is the team’s finishing in the division. How often does a guy put up MVP numbers, but his team is mediocre or worse and he finishes back in the field. Steve
#33210	04/10/2016 7:44:06 pm		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	I'd vote for realistic. So yeah, a bonus for being on a championship team. BTW, here is my original reply to you before it got buried: That is an impressive number of SB, but I don't think it should be enough to take home the MVP. I'm not sure what the exact weighting should be, but it seems like its too high right now. I suppose the RC formula gives some indication of a viable weighting. Any adjustment would be an improvement moving forward. Also, (with a nod to the RC formula) CS should be counter balancing SB. For instance 20 SB with 2 CS is a lot more impressive than 40 SB with 32 CS. I still think milestones should be weighted a bit extra. You know the voters look at 40 HRs and 100 RBIs differently then 39 HRs and 99 RBIs. Even if its not "right."
#33218	04/10/2016 10:01:52 pm		Ignore
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	I think advanced metrics are used far more for the Cy than MVP voting. The offensive award will probably lag behind for quite some time, but it is moving in the metric direction. If CS isn't being used for the calculation here and you don't want to incorporate it, SB values should probably be decreased by at least a third of what they are currently. That's obviously just a guess since the formula isn't known by us. I agree that division champs should get a small bonus. History also suggests that middle positions get a slight positive bump. This is all much ado about nothing, though. I don't give a flying leap who wins any of the awards because the only impact is the salary for those few players. Updated Sunday, April 10 2016 @ 10:05:56 pm PDT
#33232	04/11/2016 7:57:34 am		Ignore
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	It is very inappropriate to send harassing PMs. Please cease this immature behavior immediately.
#33246	04/11/2016 2:10:31 pm
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	Okay...I think we've all aired our feeling on this subject. Let's just table the subject and I'll look into tweaking the formulas a bit. Thanks, Steve

| |

Reply