Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Much Ado About Bunting
The good news is that the researcher did alot of research. He also tackled alot of different issues. And he brought alot of those issues together. If you keep your expectations from that standpoint, I think you can get alot out of the article.
There's a few things that are correctable, such as the writer needing to do things on a per-rate basis, and not correlate gross numbers. Disspelling with the notion as to what's an acceptable correlation (expecting r=.84 is going to make you wait a long time and end up missing alot). And talking about Carlos Pena and not talking about shifts. There's a few others, but, I'm not in the mood.
I think that the article would have played better as a series of smaller articles, so that the writer could have incorporated ideas from readers.?
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 151 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date
FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 MarcelsApr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref
Apr 12 09:43 What if baseball was like survivor? You are eliminated ...
Nov 24 09:57 Win Attribution to offense, pitching, and fielding at the game level (prototype method)
Jul 13 10:20 How to watch great past games without spoilers