Jump to content
Want to get your head around free agents the WORLD CHAMPION Brewers can spend on this winter? Click here and check out our top 75 free agents ranking! ×
Brewer Fanatic

rluzinski

Verified Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,362

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Milwaukee Brewers News, Rumors & Analysis

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Top Prospect Rankings

Milwaukee Brewers Videos

2022 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Milwaukee Brewers Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Milwaukee Brewers Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2024 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Milwaukee Brewers Players Project

2025 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Milwaukee Brewers Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by rluzinski

  1. rluzinski
    If he k's a lot and doesn't walk much he can learn patience and the strike zone. These's still alot of debate over whether a player can "learn" the strike zone enough to significantly raise his walk rate as his career goes on. While there are some examples in MLB of players doing just that (Sexson is usually mentioned) it doesn't seem typical. Once a hacker, always a hacker.
  2. rluzinski
    Please see this thread: LINK If you have any questions, just ask it in that thread, please.
  3. rluzinski
    Mainly, OBP and SLG "work". There's no such formula that uses BA, as far as I know. There are about a million "runs created" formulas and they all work better than AB*OBP*SLG. While simple runs created is a great "back of the envelope" type calculation, even it's creator has moved on long ago. Run Estimation History
  4. rluzinski
    Russ, just curious, is that Minitab you are using to do those projections? Naaa, just excel. Using the simulation method, you could basically use anything with a random number generator. QBASIC would work!
  5. rluzinski
    you could probably use this to make money in vegas... Nothing I've done here is original. I just put the pieces together. Even if you just assumed all teams had a 50/50 shot at winning all their remaining games, you'd see how the winning distributions turns out. If you take 5 average teams, it is very likely that 1 will win more than half their games.
  6. rluzinski
    I just wanted to sum up my predictions and how well they performed. On September 12th, when the Brewers were 71-72, I "fixed" my predictions by basing them on simulations of 10,000 seasons for the remaining 19 games. It calculated that the most probable finish was 10-9. 18+% of the simulated seasons ended with winning 10 of the last 19 games. Yes indeed, that gives a final record of 81-81: http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/montecarlo.gif As an added bonus, with regard to how many wins the wildcard team will have, I said, "89 wins. That's what I think it will take" (8/24 post). As it turned out, Houston won it with 89 wins, with Philli finishing 1 game back at 88 wins. I don't post this to pump myself up, but only to hopefully prove the validity in these type of calculations. They can't predict the future, but they can point to the most likely final records. Someone in this thread asked, "What makes your 87 prediction any better than someones 84 win prediction?" The answer is, it was better because it was based on qualitative reasoning that took into account the binomial distribution of wins and strength of schedule. It won't always be right but it will be closer than just a wild guess.
  7. rluzinski
    It sure saves me time when I can just link to threads here. That was mostly the motivation to me requesting this forum in the first place.
  8. rluzinski
    I think OPS gives to much credit to a singles hitter. Runs are scored by doing two things, getting on base and moving runners along. A single can do both of those things, while a walk is only guaranteed to do one of them. While a double IS better than a single, it's not TWICE as good (in terms of scoring runs) because while a double moves runners over about twice as good, the "get on base" portion of it's value is still the same. Subtracting out BA would undervalue singles.
  9. rluzinski
    All this "productive outs" talk started when rose suggested that teams like St Louis and Philli scored increased their run production because of fundamentals and the use of prodtive outs. He then went on to speculate that the Brewers could substantially increase their run production with better fundamentals. While I beat up the Brewers for boneheaded plays as much as anywone this year, I recognize that it didn't have much of an effect on runs scored, with respect to other teams. Other teams fail at bunting and make outs on the basepaths as well. What I'm NOT saying is that the Brewers didn't cost themselves runs, that no type of situational hitting is valid, that all batters should swing for the fences on every pitch, etc... It just seems that fans have a tendancy to magnifiy the positive and negative effects of fairly insignificant events in baseball.
  10. rluzinski
    I checked the splits at baseball reference.com and learned that we were only shut out once in 1982. That seems pretty remarkable. That's incredible. As for the merits of hit and runs, I can see how it helps and I can see how it hurts. Why should i simply assume it gives a team a net gain at all? Hit and runs cause runners to run when they may not get a good jump. It causes batters to swing when they otherwise may not have. I'm not saying I know whether it can be an effective tool; I just don't like anyone presuming they do if they have nothing to base that on.
  11. rluzinski
    The only year that I ever saw productive outs be compiled, it had a negative coorelation to runs scored. The teams with high "productive outs" are usually the teams with alot of outs. I find the bigball brand of baseball boring to watch, but I'm not going to kid myself that playing for 1 run in the 3rd inning is a sound strategy. None of the numbers I have EVER seem points to "small ball" as a way to maximize runs scored. People always point to the Angels as the poster child of small ball, but I just don't see it. They were 4th in runs scored and 6th in OPS. Where is it that they scored all these extra runs that other teams don't? As I always say, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where small ball can and does win a team games, but it's not NEARLY as important as some would have you believe. If you can estimate runs scored to within 95% with OBP and SLG, how imporant is produtive outs, stealing, team chemistry, grittiness, etc, in terms of scoring runs? I'd be tempted to say around 5%.
  12. rluzinski
    All you need to know is the total runs a team scores and gvies up and you can closely calculate how many wins they should have over the course of a year. Pythagorean Theorem Productive Outs was discussed here: Productive Outs There was actually a slight NEGATIVE coorelation between productive outs and runs.
  13. rluzinski
    It may seem like the Brewer production was typical but as I see it here are the playoff teams and how many times the scored 2 or fewer runs Your numbers don't prove what you are trying to make them prove because: Less "2 runs or less" = higher runs/game average = winning more games = playoffs! Of COURSE teams that score more runs went to the playoffs. As I was explaining before, run distribution is HIGHLT coorelated to average runs/game. It's that simple. I even showed you that the Brewers' run distribution almost perfectly matched up with what you would expect a 4.5 run/game team to do. To use your list of playoff teams and how many games they had with 2 runs or less, let me add another column: RS GM Bos 910 22 NY 886 27 StL 805 28 Ana 761 30 Atl 769 27 Chi 741 34 Milw 726 45 Hou 693 44 SD 684 46 RS = runs scored. Boston only scored 2 runs or less 22 times because they scored ALOT of runs by bashing the ball all over the park, not because they sacrificed. COMPLETELY the opposite! Please, read that thread I linked to in my first post. So offensively the Brewers had the same slugging as the Cards and only 40 fewer total bases but scored 79 fewer runs. AB OBP SLG SRC RUN MIL 5416 .331 .423 728 725 StL 5499 .338 .422 784 798 SRC = simple runs created = AB*OBP*SLG The Cardinals scored more runs because of a higher OBP (which gave them more AB). While there are obviously other factors which control how many runs a team scores, OBP and SLG does a great job of esimating it.
  14. rluzinski
    It's disturbing that we were shutout 12 times. Also, we scored 2 runs or less during more than 1/4 of our schedule. A team that averages 4.5 runs/game, like the Brewers did, should have a fairly redictable run distribution. Over the course of a 162 game season, here's what an average 4.5 runs/game team did vs. the Crew: Runs Average Brewers 0 10 12 1 18 15 2 21 23 3 23 20 4 22 20 5 19 18 Like I KEEP saying, the Brewers scored about the way you would expect a 4.5 run/game team to score. They were more consistant than many other teams. Look at all the teams. They all have a significant amount of games where they score 2 runs or less. LINK That's why it's hogwash when an announcer says, "team A is 56-21 when scoring 4 or more runs." Well no duh! If an average team scores 2 or less runs 30% of the time, and they have an aweful record doing it, of COURSE they have a good record when they score 4 or more.
  15. rluzinski
    RoseBowlMtg, Like I said, the Brewers were MORE consistant (closer to 4,4,5,5 than 2,2,7,7) than the average team. Check out that thread. Score an extra run a game with better fundamentals is not too far of a stretch. Scoring an extra run per game would jump their average run/game to 5.5. They would have the highest scoring offense by simply learning how to sacrifice better? Here's Philli's and the Cards's rankings in the NL: RUNS BA OBP SLG Phili 2 3 1 4 Cards 3 4 4 7 Don't think it's their bunting that's scoring the runs.
  16. rluzinski
    The distribution of runs scored/game is largely a function of average runs scored per game. The Cardinals averaged 5 runs/game to the Brewers 4.5. As a result, the Brewers were destined to have more games where they would score 2 runs or less. I looked at this a little more in depth a couple months ago. I found that the Brewer's offense actually scored closer to their average runs/game than many teams. The link to that thread is below: Offensive Consistency Thread
  17. rluzinski
    No one wants to ban batting average. Since a walk is only worth about 2/3rds of a hit, it would be foolish to ignore it. SLG actually contains batting average, however (ISO + BA = SLG). Most of the times, you'll see BA, OBP and SLG all listed, since each shows pertinent information. To ignore OBP and SLG in favor of BA and HR is just wrong, however. You miss alot of very important information.
  18. rluzinski
    How about a countdown to the first spring training game? That would be closer, so it would make me feel better http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif
  19. rluzinski
    I'm shooting for 31337 posts. I felt so old when I first became aware what 31337" meant.
  20. rluzinski
    I hated Hall and was proven 100% wrong this year. As a middle infielder, Hall has ALOT of value. Seems like some people have a VERY hard time admitting when they are wrong. Branyan did very nice this year, in limited opportunities. Still, some find it impossible to admit that. I find that difficult to understand.
  21. rluzinski
    There is nothing implied or stated in the data that allows those generalizations I would disagree, as well as many other people who seem to know alot more than me about statistical analysis. You haven't said what is the fundamental flaw in using the data as I am anyway. You just keep saying "mass aggregate" over and over. People use that type of data all the time. While there are potential pitfalls, you are simply dismissing it without knowing if there are any to begin with. To continue with the Pujols example, he might have superior stats to most other batters but since those are just "mass aggregates" according to your philopsophy they tell you "nothing". The environment he amassed those statistics are wholy enough to him only; no other batter faced the same exact pitchers the same amount of times. No batter faced the same sequence of pitches. The ball parks that he played in were different. As a result, according to your philosphy, absolutely no generalizations about his abilities can justifiably be made. Can't agree with that. Mass aggregates can tell you alot, provided you are mindful of their limitations. Adjustments can be made for different ballparks. Relative abilities of pitchers faced can even be accounted for. The results won't be perfect, but it can then be reasonable to make relative comparisons between different batter's abilities.
  22. rluzinski
    No, I think what he said is... If a team has a guy on first with no one out A run scores 44% that inning. might not be him. Correct. The odds of scoring by choosing either method are close enough that i don't stress over it much. When playing for one run I would agree for the most part. The thing that can really hurt you is failing at the sacrifice, however.
  23. rluzinski
    I think it's obvious that the shear number of posts I have prove my superiority over everyone else. That or I need a new hobby.
  24. rluzinski
    I was looking for another thread and came across that one right after Branyan HRd. I certainly wasn't adding anything to the thread but it wasn't as premeditated as it might have appeared. I never found the thread BTW. This Russell Branyan hate-fest is absurd. I put him in the lineup thread and I thought people wanted to kill me. Rediculous.
  25. rluzinski
    ...that says a guy on first with no outs scores 44% of the time 100% of the time he is there. ? Not taking into a effect that outs may have occured while the runner moving around the bases to score. What do you mean?
×
×
  • Create New...