Jump to content
Mashed Potatoes

Super Stat Sticky: Get Your Learn On!

Recommended Posts

Thanks to the work of Baltimoron and now, we have the beginnings of a comprehensive advanced statistics list. Anyone with more links, important and concise notes, or organizational ideas just post them here or PM me, and I'll edit the original post. It will become a sticky, and eventually incorporated into the hangout.

I love this idea and all of your research is greatly appreciated. Despite being an academic stats and math are sometimes difficult for me to digest- time to "get my learn on".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, this is great stuff. Can we get a sticky on this action?
Seconded. This needs to be a sticky on the Orioles forum, just because more people use that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More thanks here for the ongoing work.

I think the opening list of links should all go to updated player rankings, wherever possible, and that links to definitions and explanations should go below in the "Notes" section. So for example, while the new link to the wOBA material is useful, it belongs in the lower section rather than in the upper section. And there maybe 1970's updated wOBA stats can be linked when it's ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More thanks here for the ongoing work.

I think the opening list of links should all go to updated player rankings, wherever possible, and that links to definitions and explanations should go below in the "Notes" section. So for example, while the new link to the wOBA material is useful, it belongs in the lower section rather than in the upper section. And there maybe 1970's updated wOBA stats can be linked when it's ready.

Good looking out, I meant to keep them separated as you suggested, but I never clicked the first link 1970 provided so I wasn't sure if it was the explanation or the rankings. Anywho I fixed it.

Also 1970 or Tony or Scottie can you guys change the thread title from Stick to Sticky? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I wrong in thinking that Drungo has had a list like this up on the Hangout for well over a year?

I had a series of articles that were really stat glossaries, and I'd link to them from time to time when questions came up. When the board migrated to its current form they kind of got lost in the archives. I think this will serve as a good replacement, there's already more here than was in the old articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chone Smith's Zone rating adjustments

Basically, a large outfield wall (to a lesser extent a large outfield) can effect a players zone rating because balls that hit these walls or that fall into the extra outfield are "in-park" hits but are generally also balls that are not field able- think fly balls off the green monster or shots to deep power alleys in big parks like Coors.

RF in Camdem is pretty extreme, -0.036, while CF is somewhat less extreme, -.015. This is largely due to the the deep right center wall, which affects both CF and RF stats, and the scoreboard wall in Rf.

What this means is Camden makes the Zone Rating for a CF and a RF worse than it should be, by factors of -.015 for CF and -.036 for RF.

Worst ballpark outfield positions for ZR

Ballpark      POS  ZR adjustmentEnron         LF       -.045Fenway        LF       -.042Joe Robbie    LF       -.039PNC           LF       -.039PNC           RF       -.039Camden        RF       -.036Metrodome     RF       -.026Metrodome     CF       -.024PacBell       RF       -.022Ameriquest    LF       -.021

Best ball park outfield positions for ZR

Ballpark      POS  ZR adjustmentFenway        RF       .026Skydome       LF       .022Dodger        LF       .018PacBell       LF       .018BOB           LF       .017Comerica      LF       .017Turner        RF       .017Angel         LF       .016

BTW here is a thread that has a link to all of the 3 year park data (2004-2006) from the 2007 Bill James handbook. link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some information about the accuracy of various projection systems in 2006 from Chone Smith:

HittersPECOTA .736 Shandler .702BIS .685 ZiPS .684Chone .677Marcel .664PitchersZiPS .459PECOTA .451BIS/James .445 (Bill James has nothing to do with these pitcher projections although its in his Handbook, he claims it can't be done)Marcel .432Chone .424Shandler .423Prior Year FIP .370Prior Year ERA .290 

For hitters it is based on 114 players who had 500 or more AB, with a few eliminated (Dan Uggla and Hanley Ramirez among others) because not all systems projected minor leaguers.

For pitchers, the number represents the correlation coefficient between projected ERA and actual ERA for pitchers with 100 innings. Given the innings requirement pretty much excludes receivers, you can see how hard it is to predict pitchers.

Link to PECOTA testing

General Pitcher projection testing

Hitter projections

While there are sample size problems (with just 114 observations for hitters, one standard deviation is around .093 points of correlation), the results do suggest that each system is better than the one below it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Baseball Info Solutions decided not to release the +/- fielding system they published in The Fielding Bible last year. So no Fielding Bible.

Thankfully, the folks at The Hardball Times purchased detailed Zone Rating (the new Zone Rating that was behind the +/- system, not the Zone Rating available elsewhere, like ESPN) statistics from BIS. While they're not the same as the stats that were the highlight of the fielding bible, they're still very good: essentially they assign each fielder a zone (or rather, a set of zones) on the field and assess how many balls hit into that zone the fielder converts into outs. They also lists plays made out of zone. This has advantages over more traditional fielding stats like fielding percentage because it incorporates fielder range into the estimate of fielder quality in addition to his sure-handedness and ability to throw accurately. And it's better than range factor because it accounts for the number of balls a player had the opportunity to field, rather than just assuming that all players get the same number of chances at a given position.

=1"]THT stats

Great explanation of this Zone Rating and how to use it by Seam Smith

Its a great resource, the best for fielding stats IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I don’t disagree with anything you said, and I’m grateful you said it. Everyone needs a designated driver. But lemme play devil’s advocate for a moment. This is 60 games. ~12 starts instead of 30. 60 starters instead of 162, and several guys who can start a time or two and not ruin our lives. One trait of greatness is consistency. Over 60, that is less important than over 162. Our starters and our pen appear much superior to the last couple years. Not enough to matter in 162 because the long season takes a toll, And quality-or lack thereof- finds its level, but in 60 games? Sure. And remember the short season doesn’t help the best, because the best doesn’t need the benefits a short season offers. The defense is much better too, unless Nunez is playing third, anyway. so yes I agree with you, but it’s not out of the question.  
    • This was a nice read.  And that's not sarcasm.
    • No qualifying offers this season.
    • If Stroman gets a qualifying offer he would cost the O's their third pick (either the comp pick after round 2 or, if that pick is traded, their third round pick). Jake Odorizzi got a QO this off-season at the same age as Stroman with a less successful career to date. I think it is quite likely that Stroman gets one too.
    • I appreciate Wildcards's enthusiasm and optimism. This season is such a wildcard because of all the variables that really anything could happen and I wouldn't be overly surprised. Saying that, there is no reality where this is the beginning of a sustainable winning core.  There is just as much of a chance of this team losing ten straight games as they do of keep playing .500 ball the rest of this season.  As Drungo has point out, there are some guys who have started out this season way above their carer norms. Even if you believe Severino, Ruiz, Alberto and Nunez are breaking out as they enter their primes, does anyone think Cobb, Milone and Wojo are going to keep pitching to their current ERAs? Cobb maybe since it seems his splitter has come back, but I'm not buying long term sustainability on Milone and Hyde has used Wojo right but not letting him go more than twice through an order. 
    • What does that mean? What's the cost of Wildcard's optimism? Also, I don't think what I said constituted being negative.  That's an honest appraisal of the team.    Not much of what we are seeing looks sustainable.
    • Yea I don’t know that I buy they will spend what it takes but they have very little money committed long term and that is when you can take advantage of it.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...