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.