ORS

Over 100 means it helps HR, under 100 hurts HR.

It's not SLG, it's HR. And it wasn't BBTF, but Hardball Times. The guy who wrote the article runs Hittracker. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/home-run-park-factor-a-new-approach/

Incorrect. The park factors you can find at the major sporting new sites are overall park factors. A guy at Baseball Think Factory did a 3 year park factor for each park by field a couple of years ago. Fenway has a strong HR factor to LF. And, why wouldn't it? Normal flyouts are dingers there.

Get ready for it, here it comes.... Bah-ah-ah-ah. You've been warned.

Not that I know of. I think there are dimension minimums for new parks, but older parks are grandfathered in, and a new park designed as a replica to replace a grandfathered in park is probably allowed to keep its dimensions. This doesn't mean the league couldn't attempt to pressure them in other ways or offer incentives to make modifications, but I don't think they have official authority to enforce any changes.

It's really a toss up. Span created 101 runs with his higher OBP, and Ellsbury created 99 with his ability to move himself into scoring position. I'd make my choice based on the roster hitting behind them. With boppers in the Papi/Manny (circa 2005) mold, I'd go with Span and the Earl Weaver philosophy of waiting for the 3-run homer. With guys like Victor Martinez and Youkilis (good hitters, but not mashers), I'd go with the guy who can get himself into scoring position and is more likely to go 1st to 3rd and score from 1st on a double.

An appeal to the "rules" and moderating staff? Please, it was just a short while ago that the new "rules" were announced and diony was shown the door. He's back. That tells me there are no rules here. As for the analysis, it's less about who he favored than it is about how it's communicated. Drew is "no question" better than Granderson. His OPS had a larger margin over Granderson's than Jeter did over Ellsbury, or Teixieira did over Martinez, but he was very dismissive of the comparisons to the Yankees and made it seem like Drew just barely got the edge over Granderson. That's not a fair analysis, and the dismissiveness is really what that "analysis" was all about.

There's nothing to turn around. You are a douchebag. Plain an simple. You've been shown the double standard you apply for the two teams on numerous occassions, you've been respectfully shown the gross errors in your thought process time and time again, and nothing has changed. It's still all about you telling us how great everything Yankee is and how awful everything Red Sox is. You aren't here for discussion, you are here for discontent. Therefore, I'm not engaging in discussion, and I'm returning the discontent. I make no apologyfor nor will I attempt to qualify what I'm doing here. I'm actively name calling, because I feel it's the only appropriate response to your posts.

It's what you are, Jack. You should expect it.

Do you ever get tired of being a Category 5 douchebag? Just wondering.

That Fenway overlay looks off. Fenway is 380 to straight away RF, and goes out to 383 at the corner of the bullpen in RCF. The 378 at Petco should be just about even with the Fenway overlay.

BP tracks RBI opportunities. Howard knocked in 19.2% of his opportunities. Pujols knocked in 18.5%. So, Howard was better at driving runners in. Part of that may be due to the fact that Pujols is more respected as a hitter with runners on, getting IBB'd 44 times compared to Howard's 8.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the league cost $125?

Really? This is from last year. Burnett vs. Boston: 8.85 ERA, 1.98 WHIP, 1.024 OPSA this is with Bay going 4/8 with 2 2B Beckett vs. NY: 5.34 ERA, 1.34 WHIP, .804 OPSA Bay did not account for the difference. You need to slow your roll a bit. The Sox, overall, are not as good as the Yankees, but they are still a very good baseball team, and you've gone off the deep end. You've pretty much favored your team over the whole 25 man roster from top to bottom in the last few weeks.

And, contrary to what you posted, the offense wasn't a problem from 8/1 on. They didn't lack offensive "identity", whatever the f*** that means. From the start to 7/31, they were .789 OPS team that scored 5.15 R/G. From 8/1 on, they were an .833 OPS team that scored 5.77 R/G. Bay was a big part of that hitting 1.023, creating approximately 43 runs (103 TB * .392 OBP). Cameron and Hermida should platoon for about 30 RC (.360 OBP * 80 TB ). Scutaro should make up for what they lose there. With him, they will resemble the 2nd half offense more than the 1st half offense.

You eliminate the "variations" (outliers) from the average, from the trend, not from the measurment. You are looking at the numbers wrong in your comparison to the stability of offensive stats. The offensive stats look so stable because the opportunity is a part of the output of the measurement. Over a full season, a hitter that goes .333 then .300 the next year looks stable because his (approximated) 600 AB's are part of the measure. It's only a difference of 20 hits (1/30th of the data varied from one year to the next). In UZR, you are viewing it around average. A SS can go from a -5 to a +5, which seems like drastic variation, but a SS will see about 600 chances in a season, and with a single valued at 0.5 runs (approx) you are talking about 20 plays. Again, the 1/30th of the data varied from one year to the next, about the same as BA It looks wrong to you because the perspective is different.

You are still woefully short of understanding what it is measuring....on a conceptual level. It's linear because each play is judged relative to what an average fielder would do with that opportunity. Let's suppose that on the first play and last play an OF has during a season, it is the exact same type of hit ball, hit by the same hitter, same azimuth, trajectory, velocity, etc, and let's suppose the fielder makes the play each time. You want to limit the amount of credit he is given on the last ball because you think subsequent credit should be harder to attain than initial credit. Do you not see the error here? It's the same play, it's still being judged relative to average, so it should receive the same credit. Thus, it is linear (on a conceptual level). I realize why you think this should be the case. You think there should be a limit to the amount of impact an OF can have over the course of a season. Realize this, the limits established by your board game are based on trends....averages. Averages are composed of individual data points that are both above and below the mean, with outliers in each direction. You do not prohibit an outlier from occurring, because they are real. If a fielder performs to an outlier level, he should get credit for that, and be recognized for greatness or abject failure depending on the direct of the outlier. To the rest, you are suggesting an application of a second adjustment. The adjustment scale has already been determined. You don't need to, and more importantly, shouldn't, adjust the data twice. You compile, then adjust. Not adjust, compile, and adjust again. If you use the data and adjustment for position right, then you can compare two fielders for overall impact.

Why should each point be harder to get than the next? It's a linear process.

Gom, you still fail to understand how the stat is measured. It is measured relative to average. If an LF is +10, that means he's +10 compared to the rest of the league at his position. If a SS is +5, same thing. It doesn't mean the LF has more impact on the game, the SS still does. It means the OF was better than his peers at the same position by a margin larger than the SS. To compare them for overall impact, like you want to, you'd need to apply the adjustments Dipre posted. A SS is 9, to a LF's -7. There's a 16 run difference in positional impact. When you apply the adjustments for position it goes from 10 to 5 in favor of the LF, to 14 to 3 in favor of the SS. Get it?

Gom, that post is a critique of your analytical method. I spoke only to the conceptual errors. I made no mention of a specific example, so my belief is not in question because I haven't stated it. You are making things up again. Cut and paste? This is a critique of your thought process as in applies to a video game from 1980. If you can find me one article on this subject from which I can cut and paste, please provide me a link. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's hilarious you think you've struck a point here.

Really? He started showing some serious signs of age last year, like hardly taking the field at all. Of his 100 games played, 93 were as a DH. I don't think he could be counted on to patrol LF for a season.

Short answer: You don't understand why the ability to account for opportunties is relevant. The impact is what it is when you can account for opportunities. It doesn't matter if you are comparing two SS or two LF. In your video game they used the scale to compare between positions, but that isn't what you are talking about. You are using that scale to say that it's not possible to upgrade that much at an OF position. This is true within the context of the scale, but the scale is based on trends. Any individual comparison within a position can be outside the scale in reality, and current statistical methods, which account for opportunities (and quality of opportunities), capture this reality. So, no, your video game does not invalidate modern statistics.

Wrong. I follow the league. I check minor league box scores every day to every other day. I check to see how players across all the leagues are performing. I pay attention to their ages in their leagues to see if they where they should be or if they are older guys playing against younger competition. If I'm really interested in a player, I'll see what one of the scouting sites has to say. I read next to nothing from regular media or any teams' FO. The first is usually woefully ignorant, and the second has an agenda.