NL MVP: Beltre or Bonds... - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

NL MVP: Beltre or Bonds...

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby DK » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:26 pm

Madison wrote:
DK wrote:Mad... Do I need to show you the simulations for the umpteenth time?


Need I remind you that games are not played on a computer for the umpteenth time? They are played in real life.

I know what your simulation says. It's basically irrelevant though.

Sure, it can help to show a trend or a reasonable possibility (I do give some credit there), but it's hardly an exact science to base all beliefs around, especially when dealing with a situation that has never happened before.


I never said it was an exact science. But the fact is, each simulation was done 1,000 times. He took out the bottom 100 outliers and the top 100 outliers of each.

The simulation is based on REAL stats. It is not a guessing game. It's not as if James said, "Oh, well, let's just put X for the number of HR, because that's what I believe". He said, "let's take Babe Ruth's exact stats, make him a little better, and put him around the worst line-up of all time". Then, he said, "Let's take Babe Ruth, have him intentionally walked every time up, and put him around the worst line-up of all time".

If the gap was small, such as 608 runs to 602 runs, it'd be a different story. But it's not. The gap is sixty-five runs, or the amount of runs an average team would score in over thirteen games. 667 to 602, after 1,000 simulations (800 without the outliers) is a huge difference, and much too big to simply be a mistake.
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby LCBOY » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:38 pm

DK,

I remember this simulation. I've been trying to find it. I thought James talked about it his Baseball Books (1989-92). I have all four books but I can't seem to find it. Do you remember in what it book it was in? I do remember that the guy batting behind Ruth had something like 9 HRs but over 150 RBI becasue Ruth was always on base.
LCBOY
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On third base trying to steal home.

Postby sisyphus » Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:38 pm

1. BONDS: The production per at bat, as mentioned earlier, is beyond belief. Yes, his raw numbers can be undercut by his number of at-bats, but not by that much. Plus, can you imagine the Giants without Barry Bonds. Anemic would not be the word. That also has to come into play. I know, the Dodgers without Beltre...etc. His impact on the other players around him is greater, he had no offensive help.

2. PUJOLS: The next perennial winner of the award. The only thing that makes this guy even human is Bonds.

3. BELTRE: Fantastic Season! The only thing redeemable about the Dodgers. Lets see him do it again.
sisyphus
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 282
Joined: 4 Nov 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Utah

Postby Madison » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:34 pm

DK wrote:
Madison wrote:
DK wrote:Mad... Do I need to show you the simulations for the umpteenth time?


Need I remind you that games are not played on a computer for the umpteenth time? They are played in real life.

I know what your simulation says. It's basically irrelevant though.

Sure, it can help to show a trend or a reasonable possibility (I do give some credit there), but it's hardly an exact science to base all beliefs around, especially when dealing with a situation that has never happened before.


I never said it was an exact science. But the fact is, each simulation was done 1,000 times. He took out the bottom 100 outliers and the top 100 outliers of each.

The simulation is based on REAL stats. It is not a guessing game. It's not as if James said, "Oh, well, let's just put X for the number of HR, because that's what I believe". He said, "let's take Babe Ruth's exact stats, make him a little better, and put him around the worst line-up of all time". Then, he said, "Let's take Babe Ruth, have him intentionally walked every time up, and put him around the worst line-up of all time".

If the gap was small, such as 608 runs to 602 runs, it'd be a different story. But it's not. The gap is sixty-five runs, or the amount of runs an average team would score in over thirteen games. 667 to 602, after 1,000 simulations (800 without the outliers) is a huge difference, and much too big to simply be a mistake.


I never said it was a mistake, and even you agree that it's not an exact science. What I'm getting at is that we do not know what would happen. The simulation can give us an idea, but it's not gospel, and certainly not guaranteed to go that way. They could win the World Series, or finish in the cellar. No guarantee at all as to how it would go. My personal belief is that the little league team surrounding Barry would not have the ability to drive him in enough to make it harmful enough for the other team to actually pitch to him.

I've given last year's numbers as an example quite a bit, but the team only drove him in 25% of the time he reached base last year. 25% of 600 at bats (if they just walk him every time) is only 150 runs. Not exactly a huge number there seeing as how he scored 129 runs this year. There's more to it than just that, but it shows the ineptitude of the lineup around him. They are zero threat if Barry is taken out of the lineup.

No matter what though, I'd like to see teams all agree and either pitch to him (600 official at bats) or walk him every time he steps to the plate. Unfortunately, neither will happen, but I'd like to see what would happen if they did.
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
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby DK » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:17 pm

LCBOY wrote:DK,

I remember this simulation. I've been trying to find it. I thought James talked about it his Baseball Books (1989-92). I have all four books but I can't seem to find it. Do you remember in what it book it was in? I do remember that the guy batting behind Ruth had something like 9 HRs but over 150 RBI becasue Ruth was always on base.


That was Gino Cimoli, the 9 HR-150 RBI guy.

It was in the most recent Abstract, maybe under Joe Morgan... Or one of the third basemen. Let me go check, I'll find it for you.
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby DK » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:23 pm

Madison wrote:
DK wrote:
Madison wrote:
DK wrote:Mad... Do I need to show you the simulations for the umpteenth time?


Need I remind you that games are not played on a computer for the umpteenth time? They are played in real life.

I know what your simulation says. It's basically irrelevant though.

Sure, it can help to show a trend or a reasonable possibility (I do give some credit there), but it's hardly an exact science to base all beliefs around, especially when dealing with a situation that has never happened before.


I never said it was an exact science. But the fact is, each simulation was done 1,000 times. He took out the bottom 100 outliers and the top 100 outliers of each.

The simulation is based on REAL stats. It is not a guessing game. It's not as if James said, "Oh, well, let's just put X for the number of HR, because that's what I believe". He said, "let's take Babe Ruth's exact stats, make him a little better, and put him around the worst line-up of all time". Then, he said, "Let's take Babe Ruth, have him intentionally walked every time up, and put him around the worst line-up of all time".

If the gap was small, such as 608 runs to 602 runs, it'd be a different story. But it's not. The gap is sixty-five runs, or the amount of runs an average team would score in over thirteen games. 667 to 602, after 1,000 simulations (800 without the outliers) is a huge difference, and much too big to simply be a mistake.


I never said it was a mistake, and even you agree that it's not an exact science. What I'm getting at is that we do not know what would happen. The simulation can give us an idea, but it's not gospel, and certainly not guaranteed to go that way. They could win the World Series, or finish in the cellar. No guarantee at all as to how it would go. My personal belief is that the little league team surrounding Barry would not have the ability to drive him in enough to make it harmful enough for the other team to actually pitch to him.

I've given last year's numbers as an example quite a bit, but the team only drove him in 25% of the time he reached base last year. 25% of 600 at bats (if they just walk him every time) is only 150 runs. Not exactly a huge number there seeing as how he scored 129 runs this year. There's more to it than just that, but it shows the ineptitude of the lineup around him. They are zero threat if Barry is taken out of the lineup.

No matter what though, I'd like to see teams all agree and either pitch to him (600 official at bats) or walk him every time he steps to the plate. Unfortunately, neither will happen, but I'd like to see what would happen if they did.


I just want to touch on one sentence:

Madison wrote:They are zero threat if Barry is taken out of the lineup.


EXACTLY. And yet, with him being the only threat, they scored the second most runs in the NL, with 850. How did a little league line-up score 850 runs?

Barry Bonds.

This example has been shown and shown and shown, but I'll show it again:

Man on second, two outs. Bonds comes up, and is walked. The batter behind him hits a single, scoring the man from second but Bonds does not score.

If Bonds had not gotten on base, no runs scored.

Madison, I suppose this is my question for you:

How did a "little league" Line-up score 850 runs with their best hitter only getting 373 at-bats?
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby Madison » Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:55 pm

DK wrote:EXACTLY. And yet, with him being the only threat, they scored the second most runs in the NL, with 850. How did a little league line-up score 850 runs?

Barry Bonds.


And notice that I said Barry deserves the MVP, didn't I?

As to the runs scored, yes, they are a little league team without Barry. No way around it really. If you really want to do some research, check how many blowouts they had. That's when Barry actually got at bats because the game was out of reach. They piled the runs on more times than I can count and that's where the majority of their runs came from. It makes the number bloated and look better it really is. On a steady day by day basis, that lineup cannot and will not consistantly score runs if Barry is walked every time he comes to the plate. They just don't have the ability. This isn't a knock on Barry, it's simply stating the obvious that he needs a couple of hitters around him. If anything, it's a compliment that Barry is still that good.

DK wrote:This example has been shown and shown and shown, but I'll show it again:

Man on second, two outs. Bonds comes up, and is walked. The batter behind him hits a single, scoring the man from second but Bonds does not score.

If Bonds had not gotten on base, no runs scored.

Madison, I suppose this is my question for you:

How did a "little league" Line-up score 850 runs with their best hitter only getting 373 at-bats?


Yet again I'll answer:

Would you rather have a man at second with two outs and a power hitter with a .370 average swinging the bat.........

or

Runners at first and second with two outs and a .250 hitter with mediocre power at the plate.

For me that's an easy choice. Swing Barry swing! ;-D

Why you believe the opposite is better, I'll never know.
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
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby DK » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:20 pm

DK wrote:
LCBOY wrote:DK,

I remember this simulation. I've been trying to find it. I thought James talked about it his Baseball Books (1989-92). I have all four books but I can't seem to find it. Do you remember in what it book it was in? I do remember that the guy batting behind Ruth had something like 9 HRs but over 150 RBI becasue Ruth was always on base.


That was Gino Cimoli, the 9 HR-150 RBI guy.

It was in the most recent Abstract, maybe under Joe Morgan... Or one of the third basemen. Let me go check, I'll find it for you.


Ah, just found it. It was in the most obvious place: Under Babe Ruth's rating, RF, #1.
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby Bloody Nipples » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:30 am

Madison wrote:Would you rather have a man at second with two outs and a power hitter with a .370 average swinging the bat.........

or

Runners at first and second with two outs and a .250 hitter with mediocre power at the plate.

For me that's an easy choice. Swing Barry swing! ;-D

Why you believe the opposite is better, I'll never know.


I would much rather have Barry in that situation, but thats not the point. The thing is you cant look at each situation individually, you have to take the whole set of data into account. Of course Barry is more likely to drive that run in than a .250 hitter, but over the course of many similar situations (say, 100), that .250 hitter will definitely knock in that runner about 25 times. Now, would you rather have Bonds knock in that run 35 times but also end the inning 65 times, or have him extend the inning 100 times. I would rather give the hitters behind him the chance to drive in runs EVERY TIME than get the 35 runs and 65 inning-ending outs. Maybe somebody can do some sort of simulation for this, I'd love to see the results.

PS: please stop this discussion. We've heard every argument 100 times over, and unless somebody has a brand new idea, I dont think we should continue repeating ourselve.
Image
aka enderwiggin
Bloody Nipples
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 3745
Joined: 28 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: doing my laundry...

Postby Madison » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:05 am

Bloody Nipples wrote:
Madison wrote:Would you rather have a man at second with two outs and a power hitter with a .370 average swinging the bat.........

or

Runners at first and second with two outs and a .250 hitter with mediocre power at the plate.

For me that's an easy choice. Swing Barry swing! ;-D

Why you believe the opposite is better, I'll never know.


I would much rather have Barry in that situation, but thats not the point. The thing is you cant look at each situation individually, you have to take the whole set of data into account. Of course Barry is more likely to drive that run in than a .250 hitter, but over the course of many similar situations (say, 100), that .250 hitter will definitely knock in that runner about 25 times. Now, would you rather have Bonds knock in that run 35 times but also end the inning 65 times, or have him extend the inning 100 times. I would rather give the hitters behind him the chance to drive in runs EVERY TIME than get the 35 runs and 65 inning-ending outs. Maybe somebody can do some sort of simulation for this, I'd love to see the results.

PS: please stop this discussion. We've heard every argument 100 times over, and unless somebody has a brand new idea, I dont think we should continue repeating ourselve.


What numbers would you like to see?

If Barry swings, 36 times the runner scores and he ends the inning 64 times.

If Barry walks, then 25 times that same runner who's at second scores and the guy behind Barry ends the inning 75 times.

So Barry knocks the runner in 11 more times and creates 11 less outs than the man behind him.

What exactly would you like to see? I'd have no issues looking at or working with the numbers, but I don't see any to work with. :-?
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
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Oct. 24
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Kansas City at San Francisco
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact