davidmarver wrote: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.

Actually, strike percentage and spare percentage are real stats that are used on the PBA Tour. You're right about gutter percentage, that one isn't used, or if it is, I've never heard about it or seen it.

davidmarver wrote: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.

See? You're not answering the question, you're "adjusting" things (trying not to offend you here, it's a word you used to describe what you're doing) to suit your needs. Here it is a different way, so let's look at what you just said backwards (easy way to check to make sure math is correct, right?).

You just said Ty Cobb was only a 12% better hitter than any random .271 hitter out there. You don't actually believe that to be correct, do 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:See? You're not answering the question, you're "adjusting" things (trying not to offend you here, it's a word you used to describe what you're doing) to suit your needs. Here it is a different way, so let's look at what you just said backwards (easy way to check to make sure math is correct, right?).

You just said Ty Cobb was only a 12% better hitter than any random .271 hitter out there. You don't actually believe that, do you?

The reason I adjust things is because you have to gauge just how good a 92% save percentage is. A 92% save percentage is much better for a closer than a .300 batting average is a hitter, so you can't use those starting points. I started the 92% save percentage as the same difference between 92% and Trevor's best save percentage and .390+ and Ty Cobb's % because that's the point where all things are equal and straight comparison works.

As to whether or not Ty Cobb is 12% better than a .271 hitter, as far as hits are concerned: whether or not you get a hit in a given at bat, then Ty Cobb is really only going to get a hit 9.6% of the time more: .366-.270.

However, obviously, talent-wise, Ty Cobb is far more than 12% talented than a .270 hitter, but that's not the question at hand. Nowhere did I say that Trevor is 1.3+% more talented than Rivera, just that his save percentage is .013+ higher, which it is.

Trevor will get 1.34 saves more than Rivera per 100 opportunies, just as a .366 hitter will get 1.34 more hits per 100 at bats than a .353 hitter.

I'll leave this thread to die; it doesn't matter to me (anymore) whether or not you guys take the save percentage statistic to heart or context. I know my math is correct; it's how I got into college, what I do as a student, and what I'll be doing for the rest of my life. Right or wrong, agree to disagree.

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?

Batting average is not calculated by the 100. Like you said in another post, you cannot calculate save percentage on one season with 50 opportunities. Batting average is not calculated on 1/6th of the season. In a 100 at bat example, 1% more hits equates to .0029 in batting average increase (.29 times 1% = .0029 which would be .2929). A 1% increase wouldn't even come into play at only two decimal places as the numbers are too close.

EDIT: Or to make it even easier, a 1% increase in 29 hits equates to .29 more hits. Not a full hit like you're giving credit to.

END EDIT

Average is based on the thousands.

Heck, we could shrink it down even more and say that a hitter who gets 3 hits in 10 at bats is 100% better than someone who gets 2 hits in 10 at bats according to the numbers you are using. Is that correct? Of course not. Draw it out:

3 out of 10 = .300
2 out of 10 = .200

Is the .300 hitter 100% better than the .200 hitter? According to your numbers, that's a true statement, but we all know it to be a false statement.

You are shrinking the hitting numbers which results in flawed reasoning.

Something else too that I just noticed in your numbers is that if a hitter hits .300 in 100 at bats, you're talking 30 hits. Adding in another hit like you are doing in what I quoted above, is adding in 3.3% to his total hits, not 1.351%. It's no wonder the numbers are off.

Last edited by Madison on Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

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.....

Typical math majors. Can't even communicate with the rest of us! Just breaking your balls a little.

You both realize that you are talking about different things? One of you is using a 1.347 difference - subtraction (save percentage of .89544-.88197=.01347). The other is using a 1.347% difference - multiplication (.290*1.01347 (or 1.347%) = .294.

I'm not sure why you are adding the 1.347% difference to the batting average. These are on different scales. Hoffman has a save percentage about 1.5% greater than Rivera. Or:(.89544-.88197)/(.88197) = about 1.5%. In order to hit 1.5% BETTER than a .290 hitter, you would have to hit .290*1.015 = .29435 or .294.

Another way to look at it: If you wanted 1.5% more hits and you had 29 hits (out of 100), you would have 29.4 hits per 100. OR, 29*1.015 = 29.4.

Yes, Hoffman has 1.347 more saves per 100 than Rivera. If you want to show how an extra 1.347 hits per 100 would affect batting average, you would get the .303 average. But I don't like this analogy, because these are two different scales. You are not comparing like to like. What if you compare Hoffman to the 75% save percentage guy? Adding .145 to a .290 average doesn't give you a particularly useful result. If you just want to show the relative difference, I suppose it doesn't matter. But then how to interpret the data becomes more difficult.

Anyway, the problem here isn't math by either of you (so I guess those Texas schools are just fine thank you very much). It's a question of methodology.

I still like Nathan, but all those top guys are pretty good. We're splitting hairs.

Batting average is not calculated by the 100. Like you said in another post, you cannot calculate save percentage on one season with 50 opportunities. Batting average is not calculated on 1/6th of the season. In a 100 at bat example, 1% more hits equates to .0029 in batting average increase (.29 times 1% = .0029 which would be .2929). A 1% increase wouldn't even come into play at only two decimal places as the numbers are too close.

Average is based on the thousands.

Heck, we could shrink it down even more and say that a hitter who gets 3 hits in 10 at bats is 100% better than someone who gets 2 hits in 10 at bats according to the numbers you are using. Is that correct? Of course not. Draw it out:

3 out of 10 = .300 2 out of 10 = .200

Is the .300 hitter 100% better than the .200 hitter? According to your numbers, that's a true statement, but we all know it to be a false statement.

No, he gets a hit 10% of the time more: 100/1000=.1 or 10%. I know my decimal points. Take a look at them.

<pre> .89544 -.88197 .01347

.36600 -.35253 .01347</pre>

Nothing is being lost in the decimal points. I am not being fooled by points, terminology, or anything of the like.

You are shrinking the hitting numbers which results in flawed reasoning.

No. Nothing shrank.

Something else too that I just noticed in your numbers is that if a hitter hits .300 in 100 at bats, you're talking 30 hits. Adding in another hit like you are doing in what I quoted above, is adding in 3.3% to his total hits, not 1.351%. It's no wonder the numbers are off.

3.3% of his total hits, but not 3.3% of the time, no. Adding one hit in 100 at bats is adding a hit 1% of the time, just like adding one save converted in 100 opps is adding a save 1% of the time.

ukrneal wrote:What if you compare Hoffman to the 75% save percentage guy? Adding .145 to a .290 average doesn't give you a particularly useful result. If you just want to show the relative difference, I suppose it doesn't matter. But then how to interpret the data becomes more difficult.

Everything else you posted is good. Just wanted to point out that a 75% save percentage isn't the same as a .290 batting average.

A .290 batting average is pretty good while a 75% save percentage is bad.

If you started Hoffman at Ty Cobb's average -- both the best in their categories -- and subtracted the difference, which is do-able since both are two-result statistic, you would get a 75% save percentage closer being the equivalent of a .221 hitter. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

All this talk of save percentage is dizzying. The difference is negligible. However, Rivera's substantially higher EQ rating as well as his slight edge in WOI make him the clear winner here.

Pedantic wrote:All this talk of save percentage is dizzying. The difference is negligible. However, Rivera's substantially higher EQ rating as well as his slight edge in WOI make him the clear winner here.

Nice ...

the only reason you guys percieve Rivera to be better is because of .. .