File :-(, x, )
Top Ten First Basemen in 2008 Anonymous
10. Justin Morneau, MIN (27 Runs)
9. Carlos Delgado, NYM (27 Runs)
8. Adrian Gonzalez, SD (31 Runs)
7. Miguel Cabrera, DET (32 Runs)
6. Carlos Pena (37 Runs)
5. Joey Votto, CIN (37 Runs)
4. Kevin Youkilis, BOS (50 Runs)
3. Lance Berkman, HOU (74 Runs)
2. Mark Teixeira, LAA (74 Runs)
1. Albert Pujols, STL (98 Runs)

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2008/10/22/639856/best-first-basemen-of-2008#comments
>> Anonymous
I believe you forgot

BRETT FAVRE
>> Anonymous
Fuck yeah, Votto.
>> Billy the Blue Ranger !5lGrhM17rM
Are you going to delete the clone thread in /ck/ ?
>> St.Feraligatr !VJOf9vVc0E
>>424002
Pretty much as I expected...except for Youkilis. I knew he was good, but I didn't know he was #4 good.
>> Anonymous
nothing too surprising here
>> Anonymous
Where the fuck is Ryan Howard?!
>> Anonymous
lol at no Pronce Folder, and I'm a Brewersfag who spent 80$ on his 2007 all-star jersey. Serves him right, the fat, inconsistent cocksucker.
>> Anonymous
>>424088
I actually think he has a case for the top ten because I disagree with how zone rating measures corner infielders. If you use plus/minus, I think he's 10th. Zone rating thinks he's a little below average, plus/minus thinks he's average.

But he was not awesome this year.
>> the Voice of Reason.
>>424088
Going 0-4 in the World Series.
>> Anonymous
>>424002

Why didn't Pena get a TB next to his name?
>> HKK !h7MHU9L/Oo
>>424088

On the bench because he's the most overrated player in the sport. Have fun with basic counting stats like homers and RBI's, they don't mean shit compared to VORP, WARP1, OPS+ and various others that go over the head of dumbasses like Bill Plaschke.
>> Anonymous
>>424726
Hey, I read Fire Joe Morgan as well!
>> Anonymous
I find it hilarious that Albert Pujols was better than the 4th and 5th best first basemen in baseball COMBINED.

Or better than the 7th, 8th and 9th best first basemen in baseball combined.

The man is ridiculous. He was nearly twice as good (by this metric) as someone who has an argument to be top five or so on the MVP ballot.
>> Anonymous
>>424053
18-1
>> SSG Posted Here
>>424683
My only conclusion to this is that his team is still playing.
>> Anonymous
Not seeing Ryan Howard. So much for "MVP".

Pujols rules.
>> Anonymous
better put a fucking ATL by tex...
>> Anonymous
Morneau is #10? Really? He and Mauer almost carried his team offensively to the playoffs.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
This list only gives further credence to how compltely and utterly laughable the "Justin Morneau for MVP!" campaign was.

Howard was 12th, for those who were asking.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
Also, fun fact (as pointed out in the article): The difference between Pujols and Youkilis was the same thing as the difference between Youkilis and a replacement-level player.

Youkilis was arguably the best 1B in the AL this year (depending on how to want to argue Teixeira and his league switch) and Pujols was literally TWICE THE PLAYER Youkilis was.

Anyone who claims that anyone other than Pujols deserves NL MVP is a monumental idiot.
>> Anonymous
Giambi is 11, wow, everyone else must suck
>> Anonymous
>>425400
LOL

Wonderful analysis
>> Anonymous
>>425411
Pujols eats children.

Children who will grow up to be rapists.
>> Anonymous
>>425411

Good knowledge.
>> Anonymous
Even though Howards having a terrible post season he's much better than Delgado and Votto. Howard's gotta be at nine

48 HRs 146 RBIs the game is all about scoring and driving in runs
>> Anonymous
>>425446
Do you not understand statistics, or are you Joe Morgan / Michael Kay in anonymous form?
>> Anonymous
>>425455
Weighted statistics done by some "guy". If you take someone else's weighted statistics, Howard might be #1.

These threads are pointless, they don't show anything.
>> HKK !h7MHU9L/Oo
>>425446

Sup Plaschke
>> Anonymous
Ryan Howard couldn't even hit out of a paper bag at the moment.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425467

Except the weighted statistics sabermetricians use are based on empirical evidence.
>> Anonymous
>>425552
The stats are weighted by an INDIVIDUAL.

>This year I'm using Justin's stats, which have all the nice features of the home-brewed stats I calculated last year

Fucking quoted from the site if you don't feel like checking yourself. Anyone could make different stat weights and come up with different ranks. The point remains, these are "subjective" ranks. You cannot prove otherwise. It's impossible to do so, so just stop. These threads are stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>425552

gb2death star, vader
>> Anonymous
>>425552
Nice try, you can't impress anyone.
>> Anonymous
>>425446
RBIs are generated by the team. Home runs tell the story of just a fraction of the plate appearances.

You only gave an analysis of 48 of Howard's 700 plate appearances and completely ignored how he did in the 1400 innings played at first base.


This is like giving a menu at a restaurant five stars after tasting the fries that come with one meal.
>> Anonymous
>>425467
lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>425555
Wait. . . so you think linear weights are just arbitrarily made up?

Please submit your empirical analysis suggesting improvement.
>> Anonymous
>>425564

So if a guy hits a home run, but he's fat, it doesn't count? Everything has to be perfect? Just face it, he's a great player and it burns you up.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425555

And I guarantee that INDIVIDUAL uses empirical evidence to do the majority of his math. The values for at-bat results (walk, strikeout, pop-up, ground ball, fly ball, line drive) are objective across the board. You might be able to argue slight differences in park adjustments and defensive saberstats, but they wouldn't be nearly enough to get Howard in the Top 3, let alone #1.
>> Anonymous
>>425573
And it's based on the same linear weights that have been researched, reviewed and accepted for decades.

The only people who are justified to argue them are those who are first familiar with them in the first place. Which requires more reading than I think most of this site feels like doing.
>> Anonymous
>>425571
lolwut

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. When did he say anything about it mattering if the guy is fat or not.
>> Anonymous
>>425568
Why didn't the web page poster create his own stats? Oh, he found someone with stats he "liked" or that he "felt" worked perfectly. Does this prove they are the best out there? Fuck no.

The fact that he had to find someone's stat weights proves that there can be flawed and inaccurate stat weights. Why didn't he just use his own? Why didn't he use the standard weighting done by a bunch of people? Oh yeah, he did what I said, found 1 person's weights to plug in, and let it do the work.

These threads are pointless.
>> Anonymous
If someone thinks they can make a scientific argument based in reality that Ryan Howard was the best first baseman, I would love to see it.

Objective and consistent, not arbitrary.
>> Anonymous
>>425579
I'm not sure you read good.
>> Anonymous
>>425579
Wait. . . so you think linear weights are just arbitrarily made up?

Please submit your empirical analysis suggesting improvement.
>> Anonymous
>>425573
It's still a fucking call someone made. Why couldn't he justify making another stat a little more important? Oh, "empirical evidence".......

You also haven't proven why "JUSTINS STATS" are the best there are. You'd rather expect everyone else to compare and contrast the problems of other stat systems, than YOU do the work.

More work than you'd care to do cuz you're on this site too, right? Or is it because it might prove you wrong.....
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425587

Wait. . . so you think linear weights are just arbitrarily made up?

Please submit your empirical analysis suggesting improvement.
>> Anonymous
Funny, neither of the teams in the world series made have a man in the top ten. PITCHING MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND KIDS. PERIOD. DOT.
>> Anonymous
>>425586
It doesn't matter if they're not "made up". It matters that someone has to pick a number somehow, and how they come to that number might be completely different from another number.

Prove to me that sabermetrics are THE FUCKING BEST WAY TO JUDGE ALL PLAYERS IN EVERY SINGLE WAY, and only according to JUSTIN'S STATS. If you can't, then Justin's stats aren't perfect, and therefore, this list is fucked up, like I said all along.
>> Anonymous
>>425591
Please submit your empirical analysis suggesting improvement.
>> Anonymous
>>425591

Can you prove that 'Justin's stats' are flawed then?
>> Anonymous
>>425592
I don't have to, to argue the fact that stat weighting is inherently flawed as are top 10 lists.

You keep thinking you need "empirical evidence" when I'm sure you don't even know what it means.
>> Anonymous
>>425593
They're flawed because SABERMETRICS isn't 100% accurate to begin with fucktard.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425591

I don't think you realize that the margin for error/argument is very small - it exists purely in park adjustments and defensive saberstats, and even then the differences from one opinion to the next aren't that large.

The vast majority of position player value is calculated via at-bat results, and THOSE linear weights are impossible to argue with.

I don't see why you maintain that threads like these are "pointless", the list is fairly accurate as it is. You might see some players move up or down one or two spots in the lower sections but that would be it. No one is going to make a monumental jump in either direction.
>> Anonymous
>>425596
>HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425599

That's about what I expected.

Simple troll, move along folks, nothing to see here.
>> Anonymous
>>425603
So you think your smart? Well your not.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>424105
>Pronce Folder
>the fat, inconsistent cocksucker.
>> Anonymous
>>425596
Meanwhile, people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI and what it means.
>> Anonymous
>>425603
Hey, jackass, this is my reply.>>425607

Stop acting so high and mighty when you've said basically nothing but copy and pasting what you said a few times already. You have yet to answer one of my questions without just using another question.
>> Anonymous
Nate Silver is smarter than all you fuckers.
>> Anonymous
>>425595

And you think Wins, ERA, and BA aren't? Baseball been played for over a century, lets evolve with the game and use more than the every basic stats that we're been dealing with since the game started in somebody's backyard.
>> Anonymous
>>425609
Typical statistician that gets more fun looking at numbers than the work it takes to get those.
>> Anonymous
>>425611
So by your logic, even though sabermetrics are flawed just as much as all other stats kept in baseball, it's still an evolution, so it's PERFECT?

You are fucking stupid, seriously.

The whole point of my argument was to say "Stats aren't the only way to judge players". Thank you for proving that even the more advanced sabermetrics aren't as perfect as people make them out to be.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425608

I don't even know what you're going on about in>>425607.

What issue, exactly, do you have with the factual nature of at-bat values? They're based on empirical evidence gathered from every single at-bat in history. It would take several years in a row of anomaly for the values to be noticeably altered (e.g. adjusting the value of a walk from 1.000 to 1.001).

You are right in that calculations like this are not 100% accurate. You are wrong in thinking the differences in park adjustment theories and defensive saber theories are large enough to have a significant impact on the list presented. You are also wrong in thinking that any old random schmoe could produce meaningful weighted averages and use them to prove that Ryan Howard was the best 1B in baseball. Simple as that.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425617

How would you meaningfully judge players, then?
>> Anonymous
>>425618
Quick question, have you researched the stats used in making this list and gone over them to see that they are accurate and that the weights are justified?
>> Anonymous
>>425621
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS SABERMETRICS SHIT.

HOW THE FUCK DID THEY FIGURE OUT WHO THE GOOD PLAYERS WERE AT THE END OF A SEASON WITHOUT THEM.

I'M HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE, SOMEONE FUCKING ANSWER ME.
>> Anonymous
>>425617

No, I'm saying that sabermetrics while flawed may be better than age old stats such as BA because its' trying to correct its flaws. I happen to like BA, and ERA because while still flawed, it tells me quickly a rough average of a player can get a hit over an out, that doesn't include walks, and ERA how roughly well a pitcher pitched.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Faggots you overthink Baseball.
>> Anonymous
>>425618
I'll explain this for your small brain:

>>425607is a reply to your post>>425596

>>425596
>The vast majority of position player value is calculated via at-bat results, and THOSE linear weights are impossible to argue with.

>>425607
>Meanwhile, people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI and what it means.

It's already been said in this thread that RBI isn't as meaningful as some would make it out to be. Is that "impossible to argue"? Seriously, you're backed into a corner.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425622

Why would I need to do at-bat value research myself? I trust the calculations of the multitudes of people that have been doing this for a living for years.

If you want mathematical proofs, find your nearest sabersite, sign up for an account and ask the people there for some.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425629

There's no debate to calculating RBI. It's simple counting. Find someone in this thread that found a way to calculate RBI other than just counting them and I'll be glad to show them why they're wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>425630
Hey guys, I just did a bunch of saber stat research and came up with this list. I've been doing this for years btw!

10. Justin Morneau, MIN
9. Carlos Delgado, NYM
8. Adrian Gonzalez, SD
7. Miguel Cabrera, DET
6. Joey Votto, CIN
5. Albert Pujols, STL
4. Kevin Youkilis, BOS
3. Lance Berkman, HOU
2. Mark Teixeira, LAA
1. Ryan Howard, PHI

Cool huh? Ryan Howard is the best!
>> Anonymous
>>425632
So you think that a flat # of RBI statistically shows how good a batter is, even if they're on a terrible team that doesn't get as many baserunners as someone else that has 40+ more RBI in a season?

That's why it's "arguable".
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425633

Hey guys, I've been studying law for years and I just realized that murder isn't actually illegal! You can go out on a shooting spree and you can't be touched in court! Isn't that great?
>> Anonymous
>>425633

FINALLY A BETTER SYSTEM OF MEASURING WHO THE BEST FIRST BASEMAN IS!
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425634

The meaningfulness of the RBI stat has nothing to do with how to calculate it. Make up your mind, please.
>> Anonymous
>>425594
Well, if anyone called this definitive, inarguable proof then this would be worth posting.

The best arguments against any scientific analysis, though, are going to first have to be at least as informed as the original statement.
>> Anonymous
>>425639
What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody questioned how they COUNT shit in the MLB. Nobody, not myself or anyone else in this thread. Fuck, I wonder if anyone at all questioned that ever.

I've said all along, the magnitude of the importance of stats in the FINAL CALCULATIONS is flawed, and the WEIGHTING of stats is inherently flawed by design.

Way to try to punch holes in an argument and fucking miss big time.
>> Anonymous
>>425587
Who said they're the best, other than Kalkman who's smarter than anyone in this thread.

That doesn't make him right, but it means you or I are going to at least match his level to have a viable argument.
>> Anonymous
>>425645
He's shown no proof though. He just said he trusts the guy that made the stats, and that's it?

I need a little more proof than "he's spent years doing it, i trust him".
>> Anonymous
>You are also wrong in thinking that any old random schmoe could produce meaningful weighted averages and use them to prove that Ryan Howard was the best 1B in baseball. Simple as that.

This.
>> Anonymous
>>425645
BTW, if they're not the best, then wouldn't my point be valid? That someone else's stats would move people around in a top 10 list? If yes, then a top 10 list isn't perfect no matter what.

So guess what, we're ALLOWED to argue the rankings, and debate whether Ryan Howard should be on the list at all, because the list isn't perfect.

Holy shit, I love when people fucking say exactly what I've been saying all along.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425642

>>425607

>people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI
>people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI
>people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI
>people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI
>people in this thread already began arguing about how to calculate RBI

If that's not what you mean, you shouldn't have said it.

>I've said all along, the magnitude of the importance of stats in the FINAL CALCULATIONS is flawed, and the WEIGHTING of stats is inherently flawed by design.

Please submit your empirical analysis suggesting improvement.
>> Anonymous
>>425630
Kalkman actually provides links that lead towards the entire process of these weights. It's not hard, and also mostly in line with 99% of all baseball research.

People are just too lazy.
>> Anonymous
>>425649
That's half a thought though. You could then find ways to argue that Howard should be say #4, right? Would you argue if he was #4? Would you severely question the math behind it if he was #4 on the list?

#1 you would, but what about #6?
What about #8?

You proved my point, so kindly shut the fuck up.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
I'd also like to see how the weighting of stats is "inherently flawed by design", when the specific weights given to at-bat results are calculated by looking at every at-bat result in history. The weights are what they are because that's what they've always been.
>> Anonymous
>>425642
LOL FAIL IS LOL
>> Anonymous
>>425652
I was referencing other posts, so chill a bit. I'll paste them.

>48 HRs 146 RBIs the game is all about scoring and driving in runs

>RBIs are generated by the team. Home runs tell the story of just a fraction of the plate appearances. You only gave an analysis of 48 of Howard's 700 plate appearances and completely ignored how he did in the 1400 innings played at first base. This is like giving a menu at a restaurant five stars after tasting the fries that come with one meal.

So maybe I said "calculate rbis" when I as referring to what people were already saying.

Btw, nice try at punching another hole in an argument you already lost to.
>> Idea Guy Anonymous
Why doesn't troll join the site OP linked to in order to have an argument with people more informed than the 4chan audience?

I assume the answer is that he's more interested in being an obnoxious troll than actually having his questions answered or having his arguments make an impact.
>> Anonymous
>>425657
They don't tell the whole story. Do they? If they don't, it's flawed.

Simple really.

And call off your attack retards. I didn't know questioning a tripfag was against the rules.
>> Anonymous
>>425650
>BTW, if they're not the best, then wouldn't my point be valid? That someone else's stats would move people around in a top 10 list? If yes, then a top 10 list isn't perfect no matter what.

No duh. Just like someone said earlier, if you have an objective and scientific argument for Howard, submit it. You're just being a troll.
>> Anonymous
>>425656
>You could then find ways to argue that Howard should be say #4, right?

I'd like to see you try.
>> Anonymous
>>425662
Btw, I never mentioned Howard being #1. Someone else did. It's still being mentioned like I'm on a petition signing trying to get support for #1 Ryan Howard!

I don't care who's #1, because the list is fucked up.
>> Anonymous
I don't think stats should count if they didn't impact the outcome of the game.

If a guy hits a home run when his team is up 8-2, it doesn't mean as much as if a guy hits a walkoff to win the game.
>> Anonymous
>>425663
Someone else already did.
See>>425633
>> Anonymous
>>425659
lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>425664
All anon is the same.

And you've yet to explain how the list should be improved and what's wrong with the weights. I (op, btw) actually disagree with this list. But if I was going to voice that opinion I'd show what weights I disagree with and why instead of just being a troll.
>> Anonymous
>>425666
I don't seen an argument there. Just a list.
>> Anonymous
>>425660
This. He's not going to get an explanation from 4chan, but he could easily go straight to the source. He's just worried his argument won't hold up.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425659

The first line you reference is someone being uninformed (or possibly a moron/troll). There's no question that RBIs are not a meaningful stat in determining a player's value because they're situational. The number of people on base in front of you does not depend on how good a player you are, it depends on how good a player those players are.

>>425661

Yes, they do, actually.

>specific weights given to at-bat results are calculated by looking at every at-bat result in history
>every at-bat result in history

At the very least, they tell all the important parts and leave the unimportant and situational parts out because they're unimportant and situation respectively.
>> Anonymous
HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS HURF DURF SABERMETRICS
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425674

*situation -> situational

Also, like others have suggested, if you're concerned with the validity of the weighted averages that have been presented, why not ask the guys presenting them? You'll get a much better answer from them than from any of us.
>> Anonymous
>>425670
Yes, I'm going to spend hours of my time checking stats and then doing comparison research for a thread that will last maybe 5 hours max? Sounds like a worthy waste of my time.

I'd rather waste 1 hour calling people that believe in this shit retards, and watching them squirm when they cant find reasonable reasons why this shit IS spot on.

Plus I can watch TV at the same time.

BTW, just so nobody mixes my message up anymore, I'll clarify and say it once more.

These lists, whether made through stats or personal opinion are just like an opinion. A different set of stat guidelines will give a different result, just like asking 5 different people to rank their top 10. In that fact, they are flawed, so stop defending them like they are perfection exemplified and can't be questioned by the likes of anon on a message board.
>> Anonymous
These lists, whether made through stats or personal opinion are just like an opinion. A different set of stat guidelines will give a different result, just like asking 5 different people to rank their top 10. In that fact, they are flawed, so stop defending them like they are perfection exemplified and can't be questioned by the likes of anon on a message board.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425679

If you want to question them, go to that site and question the guy that came up with them.
>> Anonymous
>>425679
>>425681

Opinions can't be flawed. Logic and fact can, but "THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST" is neither, and thus, cannot be "wrong".
>> Anonymous
>These lists, whether made through stats or personal opinion are just like an opinion. A different set of stat guidelines will give a different result, just like asking 5 different people to rank their top 10. In that fact, they are flawed, so stop defending them like they are perfection exemplified and can't be questioned by the likes of anon on a message board.
>> Anonymous
>>425679
lol

Fail. Toldja he's a troll.

What do you want them to do? Explain to you the history of linear weights? Why can't you do your own homework?

Oh yeah, because you're not interested in education, just being a troll.
>> Kilgamayan !2BklmILFiE
>>425684

Opinions can be uninformed. I'd say that's a flaw. <_<

>>425685
>If you want to question them, go to that site and question the guy that came up with them.
>> Anonymous
>>425679
Wait, why would going to the original site waste your time more than it would on 4chan? It's the same thing: a thread on a discussion board.

The difference there is it's the original source, so I can only assume you're afraid of having your argument punctured.

Come on. Be a man. Go put your supposed superior logic to the test and see what the guy making the list thinks of it. You scared?
>> Anonymous
>>425686
If I'm a troll, then 10/10 right?
RIIIIIIIIIIIGHTTTTTT???????????
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>425688
You have been troll'd.
Ask the rest of the thread.
>> Anonymous
This year I'm using Justin's stats, which have all the nice features of the home-brewed stats I calculated last year, but with the added benefit of making Justin do all the work:

BaseRuns-derived offensive linear weights, with park adjustments.
League-adjusted replacement-level, since AL pitching is stronger than NL pitching.
Proper position adjustments using the CA - SS - 2B/3B/CF - LF/RF - 1B - DH spectrum.
Combined STATS and BIS zone ratings converted to runs to measure fielding.
Players are listed at the position they played the most, but the defensive numbers from all positions are included, and players' contributions to multiple teams are combined. For the top ten players at each position, I've listed their offensive contribution above replacement level and their defensive contribution (position adjustment plus fielding relative to position) compared to average. Position and fielding are broken out in the table at the end. If you add offense plus position, you'll get a number with the same use as VORP, but better.

To help you put the Total Value number in perspective, here are some benchmarks given a full season of playing time:

League-average is about 20 runs above replacement.
The cut-off for true All-Stars is in the 40 run range.
Top 5 MVP candidates are worth at least 70 runs above replacement.
MVP winners have been in the 90-100 run range the past few years.
>> Anonymous
>>425687
> <_<

Fucking faggot.
>> Anonymous
Just to remind the troll, I'm the OP and I disagree with this list. I don't sit here and hum and haw at it, though, and call it wrong unless I'm willing to explain why it's wrong.

(Long story short: I disagree with the defensive component, but that doesn't make me right.)


It's easy to call someone definitively wrong without backing up your statement.
>> Anonymous
If two trains leave the station at the same time traveling at a 45 degree angel to each other how long will it take for their paths to intersect at Omaha Nebraska if they travel 60mph?
>> Anonymous
One, these are based on a base runs equation (for pitchers) and linear weights (for hitters) that are all based on 2003-2007 data. I'm going to calculate new equations that are optimized for 2004-2008 data one of these days. It won't make much difference, but the runs environment is decreasing in MLB and so it's worth doing.

Two, there is some discussion again about whether the most appropriate measure of chances for OOZ plays is innings played or balls in zone (BIZ). BIZ has always been a rather shaky estimate, but I've felt it was more likely to reflect the gb/fb tendencies of a given pitching staff. It may, however, confound the results, because it essentially measures chances in regions where OOZ plays were not possible. Innings is less likely to be biased, but is a bit coarser. I may make that change one of these days. This won't make much difference on a gross level, but it could conceivably make a big difference for some individual players with unusually high or low BIZ for their innings played.

One change I have made is that I'm now using the new position adjustment paradigm developed in this thread at Tango's blog. The net effect is to increase the value of skilled infielders (2b, 3b, & ss), and to decrease the value of the center fielders. CF's now have the same defensive value as 2B's & 3B's. C's also get a further boost in this design, whereas 1B's get knocked down a tad. This seems to be more reflective of the current state of thinking of how to rank the different positions than the old scheme. We're talking about a few runs over the course of the season, though, so this doesn't make a big difference.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>425695
Are 1 of these trains the D-Train?
>> Anonymous
I was just going to cut and paste a series of analysis on linear weights and player evaluation, but the field is always too long.

The troll is too lazy to click obvious links.
>> Go Here Troll Anonymous
http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/search/label/player%20value
>> Anonymous
>>425694
I think I can explain how to question the validity of it without having to go into super detailed mode about each stat and it's weight.

The site listed uses a series of calculations to come up with the final result, correct? The site isn't the one that made those calculations, and he admits to it, since he uses "Justin's stats". That system can be found through a link on the site.

Here's where it gets interesting. This site owner did the same ranking's list last year, correct? I already know the answer is yes, so don't answer.

Now, if you go through the site, you will see he used a different set of stats for 2007 than he did in 2008. Why did he change the system? Because the 2007 system was broken, or is it because the new 2008 system is "better" at finding the best player?

No offense, but if the systems can be swapped out so easily and make a new list, who's to say that in 2009, a new system won't be used?

I don't have to prove the system is flawed to say it is. The site owner himself proved that even he can pick systems that aren't perfect, and that is proof enough to question the validity of his current setup.
>> Anonymous
>>425704
So what you're arguing is a bunch of stuff that everyone already knows (i.e. nothing is definitive)?

I thought you didn't want to waste your time.

There is no such thing as an absolute argument, only the strongest argument.
>> Anonymous
>>425707
So you proved my point? Is that what you're trying to say? That arguing with me all along was pointless because you can't actually prove me wrong when you agree with me?

Hilarious really. I'll "waste my time" to have my ego stroked.
>> Anonymous
>>425704
I don't think anyone intelligent enough to look in to critical analysis is stupid enough to think one analysis is inarguably correct. The fucking OP himself has at least twice said he himself disagrees wtih the list.

The point is that doesn't necessarily make the list wrong or right, but the best way to indicate the list is wrong is to actually present evidence as to why.

If you want to post 50 times like a child who hasn't had a nap that the list might not be correct you won't be telling anyone anything they shouldn't already know.
>> Anonymous
You are now aware that the internet is serious fucking business.
>> Anonymous
>>425711
That's pretty sad.
>> Anonymous
>>425711
You had a point?
>> Anonymous
>>425711
Successful troll is. . . you know the rest.
>> Anonymous
>>425714
But you like spending 50 posts trying to argue against something you agree with? What?

BTW, Ryan Howard should be #1.
>> Anonymous
>>425714
LOL

Dude, I already said I disagree with the list AND I POSTED THE FUCKING LIST.

I'm not arguing that the list is necessarily wrong, though, and I'm not being a child about it. Nor am I mad at someone DARING to make a list that I don't agree with.

Nor am I pretending I want 4chan to answer my questions and not being obviously afraid of going to the source where holes might be punched in my argument.
>> Anonymous
>>425720

>BTW, Ryan Howard should be #1.

Good argument!
>> MIGHTY MIGHTY BOSTON !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>424002

>4. Kevin Youkilis
>1. Albert Pujols

OP knows shit.

Switch those two, and he would be right.

Also if Op is a troll fuck him.
>> Anonymous
>>425719
You people should be ashamed it took you this long to figure that out.
>> Anonymous
>>425725
Holy fuck I agree with MMB.

Does I shoot myself?
>> OP
>>425725

It's not OP's list. OP's list would be a little different. OP has posted his list elsewhere.
>> Anonymous
*checks link*

*does not see post yet from troll*

*lulz*
>> Anonymous
>>425735
Actually I posted>>425727

What's your deal anyways faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>425727
LOL

You think Youkilis > Pujols? I'd like to see that argument.
>> Anonymous
>>425740
learn2reed
>> Anonymous
>>425741
LOL

I'm a troll right? Why are you replying?
>> MIGHTY MIGHTY BOSTON !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>425730

Ok, well that website sucks.

Youkilis is the best.

I just dont get why the Red Sox fans boo him when he steps to the plate.

They are always like "BOOOO"

Why they do that?
>> Anonymous
>>425752
It's because Boston hates Jews
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>425740
>> HKK !h7MHU9L/Oo
ITT: Kilge wastes his time with a bunch of idiots who don't understand numbers.
>> Anonymous
>>425758
Oh, you mean the website linked? I honestly don't think there's ANY possible way to correct the stats to make them appear "right".

That's because I don't believe there is a "right" top 10 list. Are you new to this thread? I've already said that like 10 times idiot.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Tripfags jerk eachother off, and think they are high and mighty when in fact they aren't.
>> Anonymous
>>425771
welcome to 4chan obviously.
>> MIGHTY MIGHTY BOSTON !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>425771

>high and mighty

Thats what your mom said to me last night, bitch.
>> Delicious Cake !89KlifghYk
>>425752
Because they're actually saying "YOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUU", jackass. I don't even give a shit about the Boston 18-1 Sox and I know that.
>> MIGHTY MIGHTY BOSTON !3GqYIJ3Obs
>>425780

LOL are you retarded?
>> HKK !h7MHU9L/Oo
>>425771

Seriously though, I am laughing at how easily Kilge failed to detect the trolling early on. He didn't even present another argument. I'll make it easy for everyone. These are the averages of Pujols and Howard; basically how successful they were over the course of the season in getting a hit, reaching base and hitting for power.

Pujols: .357 BA, .462 OBP, .653 SLG
Howard: .251 BA, .339 OBP, .543 SLG

These numbers are facts; they are not adjusted for league or park or over any replacement player. Further more, to those of you who say Howard was better at producing runs, check out the runs created statistic.

The formula is On-Base Percentage multiplied by Slugging Percentage and then multiplied by At-Bats.

Pujols: 160, 11.8 Per Game
Howard: 112, 6.4 Per Game
>> Anonymous
>>425789


gtfo with your math
>> Anonymous
top first baseman is srs business

stfu you nerds
>> jello44 !1QdphQF/uk
>>425814

>stfu you nerds

THIS IS THE INTERNET FAGGOT, WE RULE THIS BITCH!
>> Anonymous
>>425820

computer nerds maybe, not baseball nerds
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>425768
>> HKK !h7MHU9L/Oo
>>425811

No, you get the fuck out, fucker.
>> Anonymous
>>425835
Didn't that shit stop working on people in like 3rd grade?
>> Anonymous
>>425621
By grit, guts, whiteness and veteraness