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: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?