User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.4356 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Sparkles Peterson Posted: June 12, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2400829)BTW, Steve Phillips is currently debating himself on Baseball Tonight. Finally, another stunt as stupid as his mock press conferences.
In a related note, my television just exploded.
they suk. i like how position players include team winning ptg, but pitchers don't.
you could make a looong list of criticisms, but i'll just mention that it is based on ordinal ranking.
I'm pretty sure that no serious baseball analyst is going to be looking at, or citing, these for anything anytime soon.
He didn't swing by my office, that's for goddam sure.
This absolutely cracked me up.
And they didn't include defence too, right? That's something that would bring down BJ Upton for example.
Also, is it better than Elias rankings?
Kinda. The Elias rankings are a negotiated formula for the purpose of simply grouping players into large tiers, which it does adequately.
:drool:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16166
This answer about summed up the value of the metric to me....two nearly useless stats, and credit for what his teammates did:
Yeah, who cares about park effects anyway?
Which of you is this?
Here's some more 'tips' on the methodology:
Urine?
Kidneys don't filter fecal matter.
Newhan! Hilarious! I think his best AB was a 9 hopper through the hole.
Except the Elias ordinal rankings are used to settle dibs on draft picks when a team signs multiple A Free Agents. For example, if the Mets had signed Zito the A's would have received the 93rd pick in the draft as compensation while the Giants got the 29th pick--because Elias somehow rated Moises Alou ahead of Zito.
Think Steve Finley is worse than Josh Hamilton has played this season? Wrong again.
Think that Pete Orr's 196/229/217 in 46 at-bats is bad? Third time's the charm! It's apparently good enough to start for 14 teams in baseball as he's the 17th ranking 3B in baseball.
Hunter Pence: 366/391/607 in 145 AB
Juan Castro: 181/208/250 in in 72 AB
SportsNation Jeff Bennett: Ian, I think you hit on something. There is no sucjh thing as the perfect way to evaluate a baseball player. Win Shares and VORP are great, but you can ask the same types of questions about their lists.
Tony Snow better watch out.
Tony Snow better watch out.
Give Tony Snow a break - justifying things the Bush administration does has to be damn hard work.
Colbert does this semi-regularly on the Colbert Report. It's called "Formidable Opponent".
Of course, Colbert is mocking himself when he does it. Is Phillips that self aware?
You're righting about them and other people are trawling the rating list for obvious flaws. If they're goal was to rack up hits for their site, I'd say that they're much smarter than you give them credit for.
That was exactly my thought, right down to the age. (Too bad ESPN didn't need this in 1985.) Not knowing many people in my IQ neighborhood, I was certain that I had some special intellectual insight on everything mathematical, statistical, and spiritual, no matter how perplexing a given problem had been for millennia prior. I was capable of devising brilliant mathematical formulae and spiritual theories that solved, in a single stroke, all the difficult problems that the ignorant adults were not advanced enough to analyze properly. My discoveries were necessarily true for no reasons other than my superior intellectual gifts and my fiat, and I would argue unwaveringly regarding the inerrancy of my approach.
No wonder everyone hated me.
We see variations of this comment a lot, and it always annoys me. The ridiculous errors don't help.
If a newspaper runs a front page article that increases daily sales but earns widespread mockery and repels its readers, it is not doing its job.
This doesn't make sense. The ESPN and Yahoo leagues rank every player. They rank them according to your own customized scoring system - you don't need anything else. This has nothing to do with fantasy baseball ... except that they both tap into the apparently deep-seated human urge to organize our sporting heroes into lists following mostly arbitrary criteria.
Who are you, John Holway?
Nate Silver weighs in.
Sure, but so is grinding babies into meatloaf. Doesn't mean it's not repugnant and worthy of mockery.
Win Shares and VORP are great, but you can ask the same types of questions about their lists. This system is very fluid and puts players in perspective based on where they rank in the majors vs their peers. Nothing more scientific than that.
I'll tell you what's more scientific than that: Mrs. Garrison's explanation of evolution. We're all just a bunch of retarded fish-monkeys.
How soon before this is the only way that Baseball Tonight ranks or evaluates players. And plenty of people still think ESPN and their analysts are the tits. It's proprietary and it'll start to influence the less hardcore fans.
I think it's brilliant. It acknowledges that ordinal stats by themselves are flawed, but it accounts for the team in ranking a player. It plays perfectly into justifying how a player impacts and is impacted by his team.
It's all shite, but still, brilliant.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.......... meatloaf
:drool:
That's definitely the blind leading the blind.
Win Shares and VORP are great, but you can ask the same types of questions about their lists. This system is very fluid and puts players in perspective based on where they rank in the majors vs their peers.
$hit man--why not just list the players in alphabetical order, then
Despite recent advances though, there is still lots of work to do to measure defense. And ESPN has the resources to do a better job measuring defense than anybody else out there and they have the platform to really push a new defensive metric into the mainstream. So if ESPN was serious and really wanted to come up with some metric that represented a true step forward in the way players are evaluated, they would focus their energy on creating a new defensive metric. But they're not serious. So they just threw some guy in a room and had him put some random numbers in a blender.
Didn't ESPN try to put some sort of rating for relief pitchers a few years ago?
Hysterical.
wrestleball.blogspot.com
If you don't wanna read it, the eventual outcome was:
"HR + (SB/CS)**2 + Height*Skin (Skin = 1 if white, 0 otherwise [-1 if you're dark skinned {0 if you're dark skinned but you have a cool name like Yovani}]) = Grit/Awesome/public image type thing rating"
That really says it all, right there.
$hit man--why not just list the players in alphabetical order, then
Exactly my thought.
This thread is comedy gold. Shooting fish in a barrel.
What do you have against Hank Aaron?
I totally agree with Squash's post in #10. In a sense the ESPN execs have no more worlds to conquer... other than Robothal, they have all the mainstream baseball analysts in their camp. So they are trying to hand them a formula that they will all agree on and that can be shared and cross-promoted across all the ESPN properties (BBTN, game broadcasts, radio, fantasy leagues -- hell, these lists will fill space in The Magazine). Just another IP add to the ESPN portfolio....
Yeah, but the ABCD metric overrates David Aardsma.
What do you have against Hank Aaron?
Aardsma overtook Hammering Hank. OTOH, I was never that impressed with Paul Zuvella.
I don't know - Nate Silver did say:
I should be a bigger man than to get annoyed by this stuff, but the problem with the new ESPN player ratings is that they’re exactly the sort of thing that give statheads a bad name. Perhaps the first test of any statistic is whether it measures something meaningful. The meaning could be something simple like the number of triples that a player hits, or it could be something more nuanced like the number of runs a player produces above replacement level. The ESPN uberstat does neither of the above (hint: any stat which is simply called ‘Rating’ will probably suck), and it takes significant liberties with the underlying statistical realities in the process.
That seems pretty harsh. And he has a brand and relationships to protect.
Not that I don't agree with some of what you said, but ESPN.com is the only site I know of that posts daily updated ZR. I think that's pretty cool.
-- MWE
So wait, are they using this on BBTN and telecasts? Dear lord, people might start accepting this as a valid stat.
This is how things like "saves" and "batting average" become commonly relied upon stats.
CNN SI does too. Their page is a little better than ESPN, since they also give you the denominator (CH) for zone rating.
Awful Announcing
ESPN Sets Sabermetrics Back 100 Years, Joe Morgan Is Laughing His A** Off
Adjusting the Cup
At Least They're Trying
Friar Forecast
I'm Going To Call BS On This One
Between the Lines
The Worldwide Leader in Misuse of Statistics
To be fair, "batting average" is neither a mish-mash uberstat nor an arbitrary set of value judgments (as the save basically is). BA is just a ratio. Not as useful as some, more useful than others; but it's not a "rating"; it's just a number.
Seriously, games played is a factor rather than plate appearances?
Obviously not yet. We probably should run a pool on what date Miller, attempting to needle Morgan, drops a reference to Player Ratings into the Sunday night telecast. The SportsCenter guys will treat this stat totally straight, but I bet Jon would have some fun with it.
Scott Kazmir (4.4)
Tom Glavine (3.8)
Mark Buehrle (3.4)
Randy Johnson (3.0)
Ted Lilly (2.7)
Barry Zito (1.6)
It is clear that left-handedness is an unfairly advantageous trait for a starting pitcher. Bennett undoubtedly corrects for this, and his rankings are stronger for it. I applaud his efforts. Hopefully all of us will eventually accept the superiority of his comprehensive rating system. In addition, I imagine that this will finally settle the debate over which catcher has had the more productive season with respect to Jason Kendall (8.5) and John Buck (8.0).
MLB - Best Lineup
C Kurt Suzuki
SS David Eckstein
LF Craig Monroe
CF Elijah Dukes
RF Brian Giles
Projected All-Star Teams
C Mike Napoli (starter)
3B Ty Wigginton
C JASON KENDALL
CF Juan Pierre
3B Kevin Kouzmanoff
C Chris Coste
Cesar Izturis is the 16th "best batter" in the game. Adam Everett is 20th.
The embarrassing thing is that they're pointing to this from the MLB home page, semi-highlighted.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main