<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Win Values Explained: Part Five</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/</link>
	<description>Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:06:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58489</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58489</guid>
		<description>I know we had this conversation on USSM, but this bears repeating.  

Adam Dunn&#039;s bUZR, 2005 to 2008: -16, -12, -15, -23
Adam Dunn&#039;s sUZR, 2005 to 2007: -7, -19, -29
Adam Dunn&#039;s +/-, 2006 to 2008: -18, -28, -23

You keep acting like we have one data point that says Dunn&#039;s bad and one data point that says Dunn is okay.  We don&#039;t - we have about 4,000 data points that say Dunn is a horrible fielder and one that says he isn&#039;t.  PMR is the outlier.  There&#039;s no reason to give it 50% weight here.  It&#039;s wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know we had this conversation on USSM, but this bears repeating.  </p>
<p>Adam Dunn&#8217;s bUZR, 2005 to 2008: -16, -12, -15, -23<br />
Adam Dunn&#8217;s sUZR, 2005 to 2007: -7, -19, -29<br />
Adam Dunn&#8217;s +/-, 2006 to 2008: -18, -28, -23</p>
<p>You keep acting like we have one data point that says Dunn&#8217;s bad and one data point that says Dunn is okay.  We don&#8217;t &#8211; we have about 4,000 data points that say Dunn is a horrible fielder and one that says he isn&#8217;t.  PMR is the outlier.  There&#8217;s no reason to give it 50% weight here.  It&#8217;s wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58486</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58486</guid>
		<description>Ignore JinAz and CHONE then...

Using PMR&#039;s estimate, Dunn was worth about $18M in &#039;08. Using fangraph&#039;s UZR estimate, he was worth about $8M. 

Like I said, this isn&#039;t meant to be argumentative and maybe even picking out Dunn happens to be a case of highlighting a fairly rare case, but that&#039;s a large enough gap for even Bavasi&#039;s moving van to drive through.

In the end, it&#039;s really about estimating what his value will be next season...

I think Tango is exactly right, we&#039;re missing a &quot;brackets&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ignore JinAz and CHONE then&#8230;</p>
<p>Using PMR&#8217;s estimate, Dunn was worth about $18M in &#8216;08. Using fangraph&#8217;s UZR estimate, he was worth about $8M. </p>
<p>Like I said, this isn&#8217;t meant to be argumentative and maybe even picking out Dunn happens to be a case of highlighting a fairly rare case, but that&#8217;s a large enough gap for even Bavasi&#8217;s moving van to drive through.</p>
<p>In the end, it&#8217;s really about estimating what his value will be next season&#8230;</p>
<p>I think Tango is exactly right, we&#8217;re missing a &#8220;brackets&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58465</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58465</guid>
		<description>David is totally right.  Justin&#039;s system and the CHONE defensive projections are secondary data, based off things like UZR and PMR.  When trying to question the validity of those primary sources, using dependent secondary sources as counter evidence doesn&#039;t work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David is totally right.  Justin&#8217;s system and the CHONE defensive projections are secondary data, based off things like UZR and PMR.  When trying to question the validity of those primary sources, using dependent secondary sources as counter evidence doesn&#8217;t work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Cameron</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58464</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Cameron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58464</guid>
		<description>Yea, we&#039;ll end up doing something like that.  I&#039;m not trying to discourage discussion of the more in depth parts of the system, but was rather just saying that due to the nature of blog posting, I wasn&#039;t going to be able to tackle everything in these write-ups.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yea, we&#8217;ll end up doing something like that.  I&#8217;m not trying to discourage discussion of the more in depth parts of the system, but was rather just saying that due to the nature of blog posting, I wasn&#8217;t going to be able to tackle everything in these write-ups.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tangotiger</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58415</link>
		<dc:creator>tangotiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58415</guid>
		<description>Terry: thanks for the kind words.

I wouldn&#039;t call a 10-run difference &quot;dramatically different&quot;.  What to say of STATS-based UZR and BIS-based UZR having a 112 run difference for Andruw Jones over six years?  Super-duper dramatic?

I could buy into averaging BIS-based UZR and BIS-based PMR, because they have different methodologies (even though they have very similar inputs).   UZR and PMR and everyone else agrees on the number of outs Adam Dunn made.  The question is understanding the context under which he made those outs (who the batter, pitcher, park, runners, and outs were, and exactly where and how hard did the ball go?), and how many outs would an average player have made under that same context.  

If for example Adam Dunn made 235 outs in LF/RF, and MGL/UZR says that an average OF would have made 260, and Pinto/PMR says 255 (or whatever he is saying), and Dewan/PM says 250, is that so different?

This is really the chief issue here.  There&#039;s an uncertainty level, and that&#039;s what&#039;s really missing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Terry: thanks for the kind words.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t call a 10-run difference &#8220;dramatically different&#8221;.  What to say of STATS-based UZR and BIS-based UZR having a 112 run difference for Andruw Jones over six years?  Super-duper dramatic?</p>
<p>I could buy into averaging BIS-based UZR and BIS-based PMR, because they have different methodologies (even though they have very similar inputs).   UZR and PMR and everyone else agrees on the number of outs Adam Dunn made.  The question is understanding the context under which he made those outs (who the batter, pitcher, park, runners, and outs were, and exactly where and how hard did the ball go?), and how many outs would an average player have made under that same context.  </p>
<p>If for example Adam Dunn made 235 outs in LF/RF, and MGL/UZR says that an average OF would have made 260, and Pinto/PMR says 255 (or whatever he is saying), and Dewan/PM says 250, is that so different?</p>
<p>This is really the chief issue here.  There&#8217;s an uncertainty level, and that&#8217;s what&#8217;s really missing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Appelman</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58393</link>
		<dc:creator>David Appelman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58393</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not entirely sure I see the point of using three different defensive systems that use the same data.  You wouldn&#039;t average different offensive metrics like Base Runs, Runs Created, or wRC to get a better idea of how a player did on offense.

If you want to average in a system that uses STATS data, or some other data source, then I&#039;d buy into that, though unfortunately that won&#039;t be happening anytime soon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not entirely sure I see the point of using three different defensive systems that use the same data.  You wouldn&#8217;t average different offensive metrics like Base Runs, Runs Created, or wRC to get a better idea of how a player did on offense.</p>
<p>If you want to average in a system that uses STATS data, or some other data source, then I&#8217;d buy into that, though unfortunately that won&#8217;t be happening anytime soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: studes</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58387</link>
		<dc:creator>studes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:50:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58387</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s kind of too bad, David.  I think we really suffer from being able to go to a place to understand these new stats (and you know how hard that is for me).  Blog entries aren&#039;t a good way to organize this content -- that&#039;s not what they&#039;re meant to do.  And if you&#039;re only covering the &quot;superficial&quot; level of explanation, without at least links to more detail, that&#039;s not as helpful as it could be.

I would suggest that, in your Glossary, you guys make a list of these blog entries, along with a list of blog entries that cover the details in more depth. I really think we need a central place that includes all the links to all the details, in a reader-friendly layout, in order to gain acceptance for your new stats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s kind of too bad, David.  I think we really suffer from being able to go to a place to understand these new stats (and you know how hard that is for me).  Blog entries aren&#8217;t a good way to organize this content &#8212; that&#8217;s not what they&#8217;re meant to do.  And if you&#8217;re only covering the &#8220;superficial&#8221; level of explanation, without at least links to more detail, that&#8217;s not as helpful as it could be.</p>
<p>I would suggest that, in your Glossary, you guys make a list of these blog entries, along with a list of blog entries that cover the details in more depth. I really think we need a central place that includes all the links to all the details, in a reader-friendly layout, in order to gain acceptance for your new stats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58384</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58384</guid>
		<description>Lets pick on Dunn for a bit because he has a universally held reputation for being a very bad defender (so many people might take his -22 run rating at face value). He&#039;s also a big name FA this offseason so his signing will undoubtely generate alot of commentary.  I&#039;m also a big fan of the Mariners/Reds/Rays so it&#039;s within the realm of possibility that he&#039;ll still be on one of my favorite teams in &#039;09 so his value is an important issue to me for selfish reasons. 

Anyway, UZR hated Dunn in &#039;08 (using either data set) but really UZR was much more down on Dunn&#039;s glove last season than other systems. For instance, Dewan&#039;s +/- agreed that Dunn was a bad defender but suggested he was roughly -10 runs bad (or maybe a little worse). JinAz&#039;s system using a different approach pretty much agreed that Dunn was bad to the tune of roughly -10 runs. However, PMR basically thought Dunn was roughly a neutral defender in -08. The CHONE projection for Dunn in &#039;09 is that of a -13 run defender (I&#039;m going on memory here). It seems reasonable looking at such a survey to suggest Dunn&#039;s true defensive value in &#039;08 was something closer to -15 runs at the worst and maybe as high as -10 runs (still no great shakes but dramatically different than -22). 

Assuming that argument is at least plausable, then the fangraph&#039;s win value for Dunn&#039;s &#039;08 could be off by something close to a win just from the way it handled Dunn&#039;s defense (even applying a +/- 5 run margin of error to his UZR at best might still significantly low ball him and at worst lead to dramatically undervaluing him). Basically the disparity would be the difference between concluding the Reds paid Dunn roughly exactly what they should&#039;ve to concluding they dramatically overpaid him.

To me that&#039;s a little more than griping that a triple wasn&#039;t a homer. 

Once again, a million kudos to win values now being so easily and readily accessible-I think it&#039;s the gold standard approach (and BTW, thank you Tango for being so unbeleivable generous with your work).Win values are now in the mainstream baseball fan converasation and that in and of itself is a huge step forward.  It&#039;s just that I think we should double check the defensive part of the equation when relying only on a single metric before quoting the figure verbatim. That&#039;s all I&#039;m saying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lets pick on Dunn for a bit because he has a universally held reputation for being a very bad defender (so many people might take his -22 run rating at face value). He&#8217;s also a big name FA this offseason so his signing will undoubtely generate alot of commentary.  I&#8217;m also a big fan of the Mariners/Reds/Rays so it&#8217;s within the realm of possibility that he&#8217;ll still be on one of my favorite teams in &#8216;09 so his value is an important issue to me for selfish reasons. </p>
<p>Anyway, UZR hated Dunn in &#8216;08 (using either data set) but really UZR was much more down on Dunn&#8217;s glove last season than other systems. For instance, Dewan&#8217;s +/- agreed that Dunn was a bad defender but suggested he was roughly -10 runs bad (or maybe a little worse). JinAz&#8217;s system using a different approach pretty much agreed that Dunn was bad to the tune of roughly -10 runs. However, PMR basically thought Dunn was roughly a neutral defender in -08. The CHONE projection for Dunn in &#8216;09 is that of a -13 run defender (I&#8217;m going on memory here). It seems reasonable looking at such a survey to suggest Dunn&#8217;s true defensive value in &#8216;08 was something closer to -15 runs at the worst and maybe as high as -10 runs (still no great shakes but dramatically different than -22). </p>
<p>Assuming that argument is at least plausable, then the fangraph&#8217;s win value for Dunn&#8217;s &#8216;08 could be off by something close to a win just from the way it handled Dunn&#8217;s defense (even applying a +/- 5 run margin of error to his UZR at best might still significantly low ball him and at worst lead to dramatically undervaluing him). Basically the disparity would be the difference between concluding the Reds paid Dunn roughly exactly what they should&#8217;ve to concluding they dramatically overpaid him.</p>
<p>To me that&#8217;s a little more than griping that a triple wasn&#8217;t a homer. </p>
<p>Once again, a million kudos to win values now being so easily and readily accessible-I think it&#8217;s the gold standard approach (and BTW, thank you Tango for being so unbeleivable generous with your work).Win values are now in the mainstream baseball fan converasation and that in and of itself is a huge step forward.  It&#8217;s just that I think we should double check the defensive part of the equation when relying only on a single metric before quoting the figure verbatim. That&#8217;s all I&#8217;m saying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tangotiger</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58377</link>
		<dc:creator>tangotiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58377</guid>
		<description>Yes, Terry, you are overstating the case.

There is uncertainty in ALL sample measures, without exception.  The only thing that you can complain about is that Fangraphs doesn&#039;t publish the uncertainty level.

But, given the choice between what Fangraphs is showing, and what anyone anywhere is publicly showing, it&#039;s no contest.

You&#039;ve got yourself a triple, and you are complaining that it&#039;s not a Homerun, when the alternative is a single, or worse, talk-radio strikeouts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, Terry, you are overstating the case.</p>
<p>There is uncertainty in ALL sample measures, without exception.  The only thing that you can complain about is that Fangraphs doesn&#8217;t publish the uncertainty level.</p>
<p>But, given the choice between what Fangraphs is showing, and what anyone anywhere is publicly showing, it&#8217;s no contest.</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve got yourself a triple, and you are complaining that it&#8217;s not a Homerun, when the alternative is a single, or worse, talk-radio strikeouts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: philosofool</title>
		<link>http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-five/#comment-58375</link>
		<dc:creator>philosofool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:23:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=2032#comment-58375</guid>
		<description>This is certainly a good point. IMO, the best way to handle defensive stats is to average all the PBP data you have available. PRM-to-runs is available for free if you&#039;re willing to seach for it. And +/- (which has to be mulitplied by .8 to get runs rather than plays) is available from Bill James low cost site. The average of those should, I think, be regarded as reliable. However, when you find more-or-less consensus among your PBP values, just using UZR for your WAR projection will work fine. Any player in baseball can rise or fall .5 WAR from one season to the next, so we shouldn&#039;t split too many hairs when producing this estimator.

Also, even if our projection of defensive run prevention is less reliable than our projection of run production, it&#039;s important not to do what we did for years and pretend like everyone is the same defender.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is certainly a good point. IMO, the best way to handle defensive stats is to average all the PBP data you have available. PRM-to-runs is available for free if you&#8217;re willing to seach for it. And +/- (which has to be mulitplied by .8 to get runs rather than plays) is available from Bill James low cost site. The average of those should, I think, be regarded as reliable. However, when you find more-or-less consensus among your PBP values, just using UZR for your WAR projection will work fine. Any player in baseball can rise or fall .5 WAR from one season to the next, so we shouldn&#8217;t split too many hairs when producing this estimator.</p>
<p>Also, even if our projection of defensive run prevention is less reliable than our projection of run production, it&#8217;s important not to do what we did for years and pretend like everyone is the same defender.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
