1992casey

It seems to me that the formula for total bases is incorrect on this site's FAQ. I'd have simply sent a message to Brain's inbox, but I thought it'd be better to post here just in case I'm missing something. Here's how it currently reads: Total Bases = H + (2 x 2B) + (3 x 3B) + (4 x HR) I think either of these two ways would be correct: Total Bases = H + 2B + (2 x 3B) + (3 x HR) Total Bases = Singles + (2 x 2B) + (3 x 3B) + (4 x HR) It looks as if the way the stat is presented here, some of the 'bases' are counted twice. Doubles, triples, and homers are also hits.

If I remember correctly, it said something about an 'electronic' check possibly causing a delay. I've never used one of those, so I really can't comment further. I used PayPal, and got an almost immediate response in my In Box.

I was just going to ask how I could renew. The cool thing is that a link popped up (under the Inbox) telling me to do just that. You'll see the link when you have 30 days left. It took about 2 minutes to enroll for another year.

A popup menu or link allowing the member to "view only my posts in this thread" could be useful. I'd use it as a quick way to avoid repetition.

I have no problem with most of what blazer said, but I have trouble with the apparent motivation for the post. He based his message on this statement:All the statement says is that the guy conducting the study is trying to do what he's supposed to: eliminate or neutralize all factors involved except for the one he's studying.

Does anyone know what DMB 9.0 actually is? These are the only directions I seem to be able to find.

Link to 2006 ZiPS Projections

2005 Brewers BIP rates

Hosting and ezboard fees go up?

You're not the first to bring up this topic, so don't feel alone. Check out these box scores: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=250714108 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/mlbBoxes/20051025.htm (hit the 'Details button) In the top section, where the players are listed, you'll see a column labeled "LOB". These would refer to whatever total the batter left on base after any of his at bats. Several batters could leave the same players on base. Generally, along with the team information underneath, there's a "Team LOB" number. That would only refer to players left on when the inning ends. That would be the traditional way to count runners left on. The ESPN box actually uses the designation, "Team LOB". That's relatively new. It's probably because fans have been confused by seeing LOB numbers in two places with the numbers not adding up. In many boxes, all it will say is "LOB". USA Today's box consolidate things a bit. At the bottom of the list of players' batting numbers, you see "Team totals:". Note that the LOBs don't add up. There really has to be a less confusing way to do this.

I'm betting you're probably not sponging?at any rate, given that you paid money, you better not be! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif ezBoard's e-mail support system is good. If I remember correctly, you'll get an automated response, with a human follow-up soon enough after that. You'll have an opportunity to get your specific questions answered.

I guess you can start by taking a look at the one on this site for current Brewers. It's pretty interesting. Brewerfan.net - Acquisition Chain When what I'm looking for isn't so handy, I've gone through the transaction section of the player pages on Baseball-Reference.com, done searches, and worked backwards.

Actually, I wasn't complaining at all. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif During the season, I remember having this discussion with Brian on another forum. I thought I had remembered the rule changing but could find nothing that documented it. A quote from Gord Ash works for me. There's no way I would have made the suggestion without that level of proof. It's weird that this change was so under-publicized. Brewerfan.net's FAQ is probably one of the few on the internet that now reflects this.

Good idea, Brian, in mentioning ezSupporter once again. That has to help in a big way. A few things to keep in mind: If you visit other ezBoards, you're also helping them out. I use the Edit and Preview functions a lot. Those are page views, too. I think most of us have done this, but the icon next to the username has to be turned on manually. If people do this, others will eventually ask what it is and more people will sign up. Directions for turning on the icon: [li]Go to My Control Center.Follow the Edit Profile link.Check the box by Show ezSupporter Icon.Save changes at the bottom.[/li]

It seems that the window to donate was pretty short last year because money for the forums was raised so quickly. I don't want to miss it. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Here's a link to R.

It seems that any thread starting out with BABIP should eventually be included here, so I nominate this one: Matt Wise is Special? Is the "What to do with Carlos?" too WOAH SOLVDD or is it just a case of it not having been moved yet? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Are all of the older Hall of Fame trial threads here?

So we might be looking at a case of the dreaded 'outlier'? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif I had some links on BABIP for pitchers. Danged if I can find them when I want them, though! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/mad.gif

rluzinski, Isn't a pitcher's BABIP supposed to eventually gravitate back toward the average BABIP of the other pitchers on the staff? In other words, isn't it usually an indicator of good or bad luck? Those questions asked, I have nothing against Wise. I like him and appreciate what he did this year.

OPS has a .93 correlation to runs scored (1 is perfect). There are stats that do slightly better, OXS being among them. Expanding on what Al says, these other stats are often less convenient: they're generally less available, harder to compute, or both. And in the case of Runs Created, for instance, Bill James modifies the formula practically every year. That makes OPS the best of the 'mainstream' stats. (OPS probably isn't cracking 'mainstream' for the general public, but they're starting to hear of it now. It would certainly be 'mainstream' for message board audiences.) If we're simply trying to choose between two players and their OPSs are reasonably far apart, I don't see a lot of reason to take a lot of time looking beyond it. If two OPSs are close, then I'd certainly want to break them down into their components. If an OPS were low, I'd generally want to look into things more?the OPS might be low, but either the OBP or SLG portion of a player's performance might be useful somewhere. If I were making out a lineup card, I'd want to break it down, too. I guess what it boils down to is that when a stat ranks as the best or about the best, there isn't a lot of need to discuss its flaws every time its used. Discussion of what makes up that .07 difference between .93 and 1 can generally be confined to threads like this. On the other side of the coin, if I felt I wanted to make a point using stats that generally don't stack up well (batting average or range factor, for instance), I'd certainly want to acknowledge their flaws and make a case for why I'm using them under that narrow circumstance.

I kind of thought his had happened a couple winters ago, but could never find any definite documentation until now. According to Brewerfan.net's FAQ (and just about every similar source on the internet http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif): Adam McCalvy's 2005-10-26 article says:

I'd have to look for it, but about a year ago I saw some work on inherited runners that appeared to be a definite step in the right direction as it was centered on base-out states1. The problem was that the work was nowhere near ready for prime time. While it appeared to be quite valid (accurately measuring what it was supposed to measure), the explanation pretty much required a college math degree to comprehend and the resulting number made no sense in isolation. I felt it was way too difficult for even the sabermetric crowd, much less the mainstream. Then again, the math involved in the NFL quarterback ranking formula is difficult and the resulting number makes little sense in isolation, but fans have bought into it and gotten used to it. 1. The 24 base-out states refer to the number runners, which base(s) they're on, and the number of outs: Bases loaded, nobody out, runner on first, two out, etc.

I knew we were reaching that point when I re-posted the chart I had used on page two, but I did it because the request came in the context of a very good message. I'm not sure what's the lesser of two evils: The current thread persists and people keep adding to it.A similar eight page thread pops up in a few days.It's possible, Geno, that people just like to see your responses! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif They're always well worth reading. In all seriousness, though, this thread hasn't sunk to the level of discourse that we saw in some of the Hardy, Hall, Branyan, and Magruder threads a few weeks ago. Since we're playing nice, my suggestion would be to keep this thread open. When it drops off the first page, move it to Statistical Analysis. And if a new similar thread pops up in the near future, a moderator can lock it and direct people to this thread over there.

Since you requested it, I'll repost it. I think there are actually some flaws in my approach, but I can't put my finger on them. The point was to illustrate that high SLG guys tend to be dangerous enough to carry high OBPs. (Carlos was 48th in SLG; only 4 of those 48 players had lower OBPs.) Another tack might be to look at high OBPs and note how many of them belong to power hitters; most of them seem to. Either way, Carlos would be excluded from the elite.[u]| Rk Player OBP | Rk Player OBP | Rk Player OBP |[/u] | 1 Todd Helton .445 | 17 Brian Roberts .387 | 33 Troy Glaus .363 | | 2 Jason Giambi .440 | 18 Miguel Cabrera .385 | 34 Matt Holliday .361 | | 3 Albert Pujols .430 | 19 Michael Young .385 | 35 Randy Winn .360 | | 4 Alex Rodriguez .421 | 20 Jim Edmonds .385 | 36 Chad Tracy .359 | | 5 Derrek Lee .418 | 21 Mark Teixeira .379 | 37 Cliff Floyd .358 | | 6 Lance Berkman .411 | 22 Gary Sheffield .379 | 38 Aramis Ramirez .358 | | 7 Travis Hafner .408 | 23 Jeff Kent .377 | 39 Miguel Tejada .349 | | 8 Jason Bay .402 | 24 Chase Utley .376 | 40 Mike Sweeny .347 | | 9 Carlos Delgado .399 | 25 Geoff Jenkins .375 | 41 Andruw Jones .347 | | 10 David Ortiz .397 | 26 Paul Konerko .375 | 42 Bill Hall .342 | | 11 Vlad Guerrero .394 | 27 Ken Griffey .369 | 43 Jermaine Dye .333 | | 12 Pat Burrell .389 | 28 Richie Sexson .369 | 44 Carlos Lee .324 | | 13 David Wright .388 | 29 Hideki Matsui .367 | 45 Jay Gibbons .317 | | 14 Morgan Ensberg .388 | 30 Dave Dellucci .367 | 46 Jason Lane .316 | | 15 Manny Ramirez .388 | 31 Jason Varitek .366 | 47 Jorge Cantu .311 | [u]| 16 Adam Dunn .387 | 32 Jhonny Peralta .366 | 48 Alfonso Soriano .309 |[/u]It was very easy for me to grab the table because since I wrote the post, all I had to do is hit edit and snatch the code. Another user can do the same thing by viewing the page's source code, finding the table (between the tags), and copying and pasting from there.

endaround was actually talking about RBI per baserunner as a possible knock against Lee. I think I'm going to have to get a Baseball Prospectus subscription so I can sort their stats. It'd make it a lot simpler to see for myself! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif