Sunday, December 08, 2013
Lists, lists, lists
These results require much greater context.
First, the understanding that RE24 likely has a correlation of .99 if you simply did RA9 - lgRA9. RA9 is runs allowed per 9IP. You could do ERA - lgERA as well.
So, once you realize that RE24 is simply RA9 relative to league average, as a differential, the problems become obvious. A run in 1998 is alot easier to come by than in 1968. What you should do is DIVIDE RA9 by the lgRA9. Which, basically, is ERA+.
And if you did ERA+, we see that Pedro is #1. But, that by itself doesn't allow us to make any CONCLUSIONS as to who is the best. That list was simply a list, and it should be treated as a list.
Many of the comments here seem to impugn RE24, when the fact is that RE24 is simply a tool that was not properly used.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 150 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