Most Accurate MLB Experts Past 4 Years
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests