davidmarver wrote:You can say that 1% -- it's actually 1.351% -- is a small amount, but in theory it's the same difference between a career .29000 hitter and a career .30351 hitter.

How do you come up with a 13 point difference in batting average? 1% of 300 is only 3, and the extra percentage points don't make up the additional 10 points of difference.

Maybe my head's pounding a bit too much (migrane) to do the math correctly at the moment, but even if you did it off of hits, it still doesn't add up:

290 hits in 1000 at bats is a batting average of .290

1.351% more hits would be an extra 3.9 something hits, so even rounding up to an extra 4 hits only turns that .290 hitter into a .294 hitter. How did you come up with a 13 point difference?

Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....

tvv44 wrote:If were talking best fantasy baseball closer this year, I would take Nathan or Todd Jones. Nathan has been dominant. If you have T. Jones, you probably didn't pay a whole lot for him - risk/reward pick - I would say he's more reward than most closers this year.

You're like that guy on Sportingnews.com that picked Todd Jones for the Cy Young for having the most saves and for being a nice guy.

Best fantasy closers would probably rank in this order: 1. Papelbon 2. Nathan 3. Putz 4. Ryan 5. Rivera

I am the guy from TSN. HA!

And yes, Jonzie should get the Cy Young just because he's so nice. Plus, he's grandpa jones.

davidmarver wrote:You can say that 1% -- it's actually 1.351% -- is a small amount, but in theory it's the same difference between a career .29000 hitter and a career .30351 hitter.

How do you come up with a 13 point difference in batting average? 1% of 300 is only 3, and the extra percentage points don't make up the additional 10 points of difference.

Maybe my head's pounding a bit too much (migrane) to do the math correctly at the moment, but even if you did it off of hits, it still doesn't add up:

290 hits in 1000 at bats is a batting average of .290

1.351% more hits would be an extra 3.9 something hits, so even rounding up to an extra 4 hits only turns that .290 hitter into a .294 hitter. How did you come up with a 13 point difference?

You're looking at the % difference wrong.

.013 is 1.3%. I simply subtracted the difference between Hoffman's save percentage 89.544% and Rivera's 88.197, which is now updated through yesterday. Because I'm subtracting difference between them, it's the same mathematically as subtracting a difference between two hitters. So, .290 to .3035 is valid.

ScrappyDoo wrote:I dont know if you can apply those figures straight to batting.

A 75% save percentage compared to a 88% save percentage is a lot closer than a career .200 hitter compared to a career .330 hitter.

I hope I did that right

75% is pretty crappy for a closer, to be honest. In a season with 30 saves, that means he also has 10 blown saves.

And 88% save percentage is damn good...it ranks Mariano at #2 for closers with at least 175 saves. That's pretty much equivalent, closer wise, to a batter hitting .330, while blowing 10 saves out of 40 opportunities is just as crappy as hitting .200

I actually think this a fairly nice way of comparison.

davidmarver wrote:You can say that 1% -- it's actually 1.351% -- is a small amount, but in theory it's the same difference between a career .29000 hitter and a career .30351 hitter.

How do you come up with a 13 point difference in batting average? 1% of 300 is only 3, and the extra percentage points don't make up the additional 10 points of difference.

Maybe my head's pounding a bit too much (migrane) to do the math correctly at the moment, but even if you did it off of hits, it still doesn't add up:

290 hits in 1000 at bats is a batting average of .290

1.351% more hits would be an extra 3.9 something hits, so even rounding up to an extra 4 hits only turns that .290 hitter into a .294 hitter. How did you come up with a 13 point difference?

You're looking at the % difference wrong.

.013 is 1.3%. I simply subtracted the difference between Hoffman's save percentage 89.544% and Rivera's 88.197, which is now updated through yesterday. Because I'm subtracting difference between them, it's the same mathematically as subtracting a difference between two hitters. So, .290 to .3035 is valid.

No, actually I'm looking at it right.

I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious. If someone is a 1.351% better hitter than a .290 hitter, the better person only hits .294. Simple math, and it doesn't matter how you skew the numbers (even though you're creative about it and I give you that), it still doesn't change the numbers.

(.290 x 1.351%) + .290 = .2939179

Going by your manipulations, we'll do a bowling example since this should solve the issue, but say I average 230 and you average 130. Am I 100% better than you? No, I'd have to average 260 to be twice as good as you.

Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....

Madison wrote:No, actually I'm looking at it right.

I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious. If someone is a 1.351% better hitter than a .290 hitter, the better person only hits .294. Simple math, and it doesn't matter how you skew the numbers (even though you're creative about it and I give you that), it still doesn't change the numbers.

(.290 x 1.351%) + .290 = .2939179

Going by your manipulations, we'll do a bowling example since this should solve the issue, but say I average 230 and you average 130. Am I 100% better than you? No, I'd have to average 260 to be twice as good as you.

Choosing to pick on a math major from a top public school? Not a smart choice.

Saves and blown saves are just like hits and outs, in that it's a yes or no type outcome.

Hoffman's "batting average" save percentage: .89544
Rivera's "batting average" save percentage: .88197

.89544-.88197=.01347
.290+.01347=.30347

If a hitter hits at .30347, he gets 1.347 hits more than a .290 hitter in 100 at bats.
If a pitcher closes at .89544, he gets 1.347 saves more than a .88197 closer in 100 chances.
Where's the problem?

I don't know where you learned your mathematics - Texas public school? - but there's no manipulation there. BTW...I don't appreciate an administrator instigating confrontation by saying I manipulate numbers, when in every case in the past I've showed my sources (while having GTWMA state that my source was more accurate and while having Tavish also support my side on the Roberts argument). If you're around enough to post 44000 times you're around enough to READ MY POSTS.

davidmarver wrote:Choosing to pick on a math major from a top public school? Not a smart choice.

Saves and blown saves are just like hits and outs, in that it's a yes or no type outcome.

Hoffman's "batting average" save percentage: .89544 Rivera's "batting average" save percentage: .88197

.89544-.88197=.01347 .290+.01347=.30347

If a hitter hits at .30347, he gets 1.347 hits more than a .290 hitter in 100 at bats. If a pitcher closes at .89544, he gets 1.347 saves more than a .88197 closer in 100 chances. Where's the problem?

I don't know where you learned your mathematics - Texas public school? - but there's no manipulation there. BTW...I don't appreciate an administrator instigating confrontation by saying I manipulate numbers, when in every case in the past I've showed my sources (while having GTWMA state that my source was more accurate and while having Tavish also support my side on the Roberts argument). If you're around enough to post 44000 times you're around enough to READ MY POSTS.

You took offense to me saying you manipulate numbers? Oh come on, relax man. You haven't disproved my numbers either, so there is definitely manipulation going on.

I'll refrain from discussing schools as to not offend you again, but I have to point out that attending a school, and actually learning something while there is completely different.

Let's do a hypothetical since you avoided the last one, and also the one Scrappy Doo pointed out.

Closer A: 92% in save opps
Closer B: 80% in save opps

That's the same as comparing a .300 hitter to a .180 hitter? I'm using your numbers here, so show me the difference. Don't avoid it with irrelevant things, show me the difference in this example, and the one you are using. They are exactly the same, and we both know the second example is highly flawed and incorrect, so show me why those exact same numbers you are using are accurate, yet we both know they are wrong in the second example.

Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....

Madison wrote:No, actually I'm looking at it right.

I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious. If someone is a 1.351% better hitter than a .290 hitter, the better person only hits .294. Simple math, and it doesn't matter how you skew the numbers (even though you're creative about it and I give you that), it still doesn't change the numbers.

(.290 x 1.351%) + .290 = .2939179

Going by your manipulations, we'll do a bowling example since this should solve the issue, but say I average 230 and you average 130. Am I 100% better than you? No, I'd have to average 260 to be twice as good as you.

Choosing to pick on a math major from a top public school? Not a smart choice.

Saves and blown saves are just like hits and outs, in that it's a yes or no type outcome.

Hoffman's "batting average" save percentage: .89544 Rivera's "batting average" save percentage: .88197

.89544-.88197=.01347 .290+.01347=.30347

If a hitter hits at .30347, he gets 1.347 hits more than a .290 hitter in 100 at bats. If a pitcher closes at .89544, he gets 1.347 saves more than a .88197 closer in 100 chances. Where's the problem?

I don't know where you learned your mathematics - Texas public school? - but there's no manipulation there. BTW...I don't appreciate an administrator instigating confrontation by saying I manipulate numbers, when in every case in the past I've showed my sources (while having GTWMA state that my source was more accurate and while having Tavish also support my side on the Roberts argument). If you're around enough to post 44000 times you're around enough to READ MY POSTS.

Either lay off the regular coffee, switch to decaf, or whatever. Either way, you need to take it down many notches.

Madison wrote:You took offense to me saying you manipulate numbers? Oh come on, relax man. You haven't disproved my numbers either, so there is definitely manipulation going on.

While I didn't directly show you, I did disprove why you can't compare the differential in save percentage to bowling scores. That was become neither was a two-result scenario. In save %, you either get a save or you don't, which is why it can be compared to a batting average: because they are both two-result scenarios. Bowling scores are not a two-result scenario; if you used "strike percentage" or "spare percentage" or "gutter percentage, all of which are probably fictional statistics, then you could do a straight comparison.

Madison wrote:I'll refrain from discussing schools as to not offend you again, but I have to point out that attending a school, and actually learning something while there is completely different.

I completely agree. I'd have to say, judging by a 3.69 GPA through a double major, mathematics and physics, at a school with three physics nobel prizes in the past six years, that I've done both.

Madison wrote:Let's do a hypothetical since you avoided the last one, and also the one Scrappy Doo pointed out.

Closer A: 92% in save opps Closer B: 80% in save opps

That's the same as comparing a .300 hitter to a .180 hitter? I'm using your numbers here, so show me the difference. Don't avoid it with irrelevant things, show me the difference in this example, and the one you are using. They are exactly the same, and we both know the second example is highly flawed and incorrect, so show me why those exact same numbers you are using are accurate, yet we both know they are wrong in the second example.

92% in save opps would be the best save percentage in history by quite a bit. If we say that Trevor's save percentage of .89544 is equivalent to Ty Cobb's .366 best batting average -- both best in their categories -- then the 92% save percentage would be the equivalent of a .39056 career batting average. This makes sense theoretically since 92% is an astronomical save percentage to have in a career. (The reason you can attain 92% in a single season is because it's -- say, 50 opportunities -- such a small sample.)

So, when we adjust the 92% save percentage to batting average, by adding the difference between the save % record and 92% to Ty Cobb's batting average, we find that an 80% save percentage is the equivalent of a .27056 batting average.

.270 is pretty darn average as is an 80% save percentage.