## Best closer of '06

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

## Who do u think the best closer is this season

Papelbon
37
26%
Nathan
35
25%
Jenks
2
1%
Rivera
20
14%
M. Gonzo
8
6%
F. Rodrigues
10
7%
Hoffman
4
3%
Wagner
6
4%
Ryan
14
10%
Putz
5
4%

Total votes : 141

Madison wrote:Yet you insist on resorting to insults, instead of simply acknowledging that your comparison is inaccurate?

The comparison is not inaccurate.

Hoffman, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more saves than Rivera.
A .3664 hitter, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more hits than a .353 hitter. THERE'S NOTHING INACCURATE WITH THIS.

That's very intuitive -- you can see equivalent difference -- and that's why that mathematics is used. You can use the intuitive method -- the one I used -- because both are success/fail trials.

There's nothing inaccurate there; nothing at all.

Yes, you can look at it the way noseeum is, by taking it as a percentage of their values, to get a gauge of talent with respect to peers, but there's a much more intuitive way of looking at it...how much more often they succeed or fail, which is 1.34 times in 100, or 1.34%.

Madison wrote:I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious.

When have I done that? Quick Answer: I haven't. You're jumping me because others may have done that? Very classy David, and definitely shows this higher intelligence you seem to think you have.

By saying that I like to skew numbers to manipulate others, you initiated a confrontation. I don't skew numbers and I don't manipulate others. I have proven, again and again, my statistics and in every possible instance in the past have quoted sources. I don't appreciate you continuing to say that I manipulate numbers because that isn't true, nor does it stimulate positive discussion.

Adjusting is not manipulating. You couldn't say that a 92% save percentage to a 75% is the equivalent of .300 to .180 because 92% would be better than the best ever, while .300 is just good. You have to use equivalent starting points; that's why you start 92% at near .390 -- same difference above best ever -- making 75% around .220. That's not manipulating numbers, that's putting it in proper context.

Madison wrote:I was all done with this thread until you just had to start firing incorrect shots again.

I'd really like to know what that incorrect shot was. I quoted where you called me, not only a manipulator a numbers, but someone who likes to do that. I also quoted where Mookie said I pick and choose stats and then manipulate them, followed by GTWMA saying that the stats I used -- when Mookie made that quote -- were in fact the correct stats to use. What exactly is incorrect?
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

davidmarver wrote:Hoffman, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more saves than Rivera.
A .3664 hitter, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more hits than a .353 hitter. THERE'S NOTHING INACCURATE WITH THIS.

Your argument is very misleading, however. As has been pointed out, the scale is not comparable, which makes your whole argument moot. And save percentage is still about as useful for evaluating relief pitchers as batting average is for hitters.
Pedantic
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 6663
(Past Year: -62)
Joined: 5 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Funny movie quote that everyone knows

davidmarver wrote:THERE'S NOTHING INACCURATE WITH THIS.

Several people have shown how your comparison is inaccurate. Maybe one of them can help you see it, as anything I can show has already been posted either by me, or by one of the others.

davidmarver wrote:By saying that I like to skew numbers to manipulate others, you initiated a confrontation. I don't skew numbers and I don't manipulate others. I have proven, again and again, my statistics and in every possible instance in the past have quoted sources. I don't appreciate you continuing to say that I manipulate numbers because that isn't true, nor does it stimulate positive discussion.

I didn't initiate anything. I was very nice with what I said, and if it offended you, then you really don't want to know what my first thought was when I saw what you were doing with the comparison. Probably wouldn't have mattered what I said though, as anyone questioning anything you say seems to result you attacking instead of discussing, so whatever, no surprise and no skin off my nose.

davidmarver wrote:I'd really like to know what that incorrect shot was.

Just to humor you on my way out of this thread:

davidmarver wrote:I'm pretty sure he was questioning my credibility with numbers.

No, I wasn't.

davidmarver wrote:Go ahead and pick at the fact that I mentioned grades and major, but it made perfect sense given what the administrator was trying to insinuate: faulty numbers.

Bringing up something totally irrelevant that is not worth bragging about, and then assuming something that isn't true.

Not to mention all the "administrator" comments. I'm still a member of the boards, and still allowed to have discussions. Don't know why you think that would change, but I'll tell you something you don't realize. By an administrator giving you so much leeway with the personal attacks (only due to the attacks being on the Admin himself), you're definitely making the site look good because I didn't just ban you like I would if you did this to a regular member. So thanks for that!

The way you're using the numbers for the comparison is incorrect. Several people have told you, and shown you that.

davidmarver wrote:And Jesus, the Texas public school hit was a joke.

You come out bragging about how smart you think you are, the GPA you seem to think is worth bragging about, how great you think your school is, then take a shot at Texas schools, and we're supposed to read your mind and know you were just 'kidding'? I still don't buy that, but it doesn't matter at this point anyway.

davidmarver wrote:And you know what I got? Another response about mathematics from the administrator.

You assumed I saw your "walking away" post before I made my last post, and totally missed the fact that I quit posting after making that post. I did not see your "walking away" post until AFTER I submitted my post, and actually agreed to just walk away and end this, so I quit posting in this thread until your latest "garbage". Seeing as how you called my post garbage, that's a safe word to use, correct? Or are you going to get all offended over nothing again? Nevermind, I don't care at this point.

I'd continue, but this is getting rather old, and like I said, I'm all done with this. Everything has been shown to you regarding your comparison being inaccurate, and as far as the flaming, I've played all the kiddie games with you that I'm going to. Have a nice weekend.
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.....
Mod in Retirement

Posts: 48715
(Past Year: -5140)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

spacehamster01 wrote:How come Otsuka isn't even in the poll? Otsuka has been probably the most reliable closer...although he may not have the best ERA out of the closers...he only has 2 Blown Saves in 31 chances.

Papelbon: 6 BS
Nathan: 2 BS
Rivera: 3 BS
Ryan: 4 BS
KRod: 3 BS

The only guy who has less blown saves than Otsuka and Nathan is Gonzalez. The fact that Otsuka isn't even being considered is dog poo.

I believe that he has 3 blown saves. He should have a low amount, though, because he didn't become the closer until almost a month into the season, right??
Lofunzo
Moderator

Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

davidmarver wrote: I also quoted where Mookie said I pick and choose stats and then manipulate them, followed by GTWMA saying that the stats I used -- when Mookie made that quote -- were in fact the correct stats to use. What exactly is incorrect?

Weren't you using The Hardball Times's numbers at the time of that quote to help your argument in favour of Kevin Towers and Dave Roberts, as opposed to Mookie using ESPN? I'd agree that the Hardball Times is the more correct of the two in terms of their statistics, but how is that in any way related to this incident where you are using your own math and "adjusting/manipulating" the numbers?
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

davidmarver wrote:
Hoffman, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more saves than Rivera.
A .3664 hitter, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more hits than a .353 hitter. THERE'S NOTHING INACCURATE WITH THIS.

That's very intuitive -- you can see equivalent difference -- and that's why that mathematics is used. You can use the intuitive method -- the one I used -- because both are success/fail trials.

There's nothing inaccurate there; nothing at all.

There is nothing there inaccurate with your adding and subtracting. Sure I will give you that one with ease. You have proved to me in this thread that you can definitely add, subtract, multiply and divide.

The one thing I see you are doing wrong though is you are comparing apples with bananas. The best closers will have a save percentage of somewhere near 90%, but the best batters will only have a batting average of .330 or so with .350 pretty much tops for a career. Even the great Delmon Young can not hit .900 (with his nice .700 average right now) I just had to throw that in there.

There is a huge difference between the best closers saving the game 90% of the time, and the best hitters getting a base hit 35% of the time.

So you definitely need to factor in those 2 percentages of 90 and 35. Once you do that you will see that the difference between Hoffman and Rivera is closer to the difference between a .300 hitter and a .295 hitter for the players career. And I imagine if you had factored those percentages into your superb mathematic skills, then you probably would not have had the entire cafe in an uproar over your 13 point batting average difference.
raiders_umpire
Moderator

Posts: 26995
(Past Year: -786)
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You will be missed, Robert Smeraldo.

Madison wrote:Several people have shown how your comparison is inaccurate.

I'm not comparing Rivera and Hoffman's talents to hitters. I'm comparing their success/fail ratios.

Hoffman will get 1.34 more saves per 100 attempts than Rivera just as a .3664 hitter will get 1.34 more hits per 100 at bats than a .353 hitter.

Nothing is faulty with those numbers, nothing at all.

I'm not saying Hoffman is at talented a closer as a .3664 hitter is a batter just that, both intuitively and theoretically, Hoffman fails the same amount less in each case.

Madison wrote:I didn't initiate anything.

Madison wrote:I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious.

Right. If that isn't taunting me, or egging me on unfairly then nothing is.

davidmarver wrote:I'm pretty sure he was questioning my credibility with numbers.

No, I wasn't.

Madison wrote:I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious.

Again...if that isn't questioning my credibility with numbers, then nothing can.

davidmarver wrote:Go ahead and pick at the fact that I mentioned grades and major, but it made perfect sense given what the administrator was trying to insinuate: faulty numbers.

Bringing up something totally irrelevant that is not worth bragging about, and then assuming something that isn't true.

Madison wrote:I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious.

If you weren't trying to insinuate my numbers were faulty, then what was the point of saying I was manipulating the numbers?

Madison wrote:an administrator giving you so much leeway with the personal attacks (only due to the attacks being on the Admin himself), you're definitely making the site look good because I didn't just ban you like I would if you did this to a regular member. So thanks for that!

I said you attended a Texas public school. You told me I manipulate people, and enjoy doing that. You tell me who's personally attacking who.

Madison wrote:and as far as the flaming.

Madison wrote:I know you like to skew numbers to manipulate others, but in this case, the manipulation is obvious.

Practice what you preach.
davidmarver
Hall of Fame Hero

Posts: 5826
(Past Year: -328)
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 5.5 Hole

davidmarver wrote:Hoffman, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more saves than Rivera.
A .3664 hitter, in 100 chances, gets 1.34 more hits than a .353 hitter. THERE'S NOTHING INACCURATE WITH THIS.

That's very intuitive -- you can see equivalent difference -- and that's why that mathematics is used. You can use the intuitive method -- the one I used -- because both are success/fail trials.

There's nothing inaccurate there; nothing at all.

Yes, you can look at it the way noseeum is, by taking it as a percentage of their values, to get a gauge of talent with respect to peers, but there's a much more intuitive way of looking at it...how much more often they succeed or fail, which is 1.34 times in 100, or 1.34%.

I think this will be my last try. Intuitive has nothing to do with anything in this debate. You are correct that the hitter and the pitcher achieve their goals, a hit/a save 1.34 more times per 100 than their counterparts.

What we're saying is that if hitter A gets 1.34 more hits per 100 than hitter B, he is SIGNIFICANTLY better than hitter B.

If closer C gets 1.34 more saves per 100 attempts than closer, we are saying that closer C is NOT SIGNIFICANTLY better than closer D.

The difference for the closer is much smaller than the difference for the hitter.

Intuitive or not, it's insignificant in the closers' case, but significant in the hitters' case. The difference between 88% and 89% is much smaller than the difference between 29% and 30%.

So others should not be saying Marver is inaccurate. He's perfectly accurate, he's just barking up the wrong tree.

All the data you provided is correct, Marver, but your concludion from that data, that Hoffman is better than Rivera, is not correct. Concluding a hitter who gets 1.34 more hits per 100 is better WOULD be correct, because the difference is significant.

And yes, you are correct that both BA and Save Percentage are success/fail stats, but the fact that a closer succeeds much more often than a hitter makes you have to look at them differently. One more hit per 100 is something. 1 more save per 100 is nothing.

There may be other stats that help your case for Hoffman, but since their save percentages are so close together, that is not one of them. Leave it out and provide some more evidence.

If you don't agree that 1.34 more saves per 100 is rather insignificant, than I don't know what else to tell ya, bro.
noseeum
Major League Manager

Posts: 1636
(Past Year: -61)
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous