| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry |
| |
| 0 |
Subject: Predicting Pitcher Performance Posted by: Madman - [610552719] Wed, Jan 24, 09:57 Anyone serious about Fantasy baseball predictions, would do well to read Neyer's column from today. If you can stomach that, then go on to McCracken's article from Baseball Prospectus. Worthy of more thought . . . | ||||||
| 1 | biliruben ID: 231045110 Wed, Jan 24, 10:25 | Thanks, Madman. I'll have to check out McCracken's article. | |||||
| 2 | Craig H ID: 60202411 Wed, Jan 24, 11:20 | My head hurts from reading all of that:) Now to figure out a way to use it this season! | |||||
| 3 | steve houpt ID: 5811592615 Wed, Jan 24, 13:29 |
Ditto with Craig H - I understand what he's saying. How to use it is something wlse. Good article. Need to browse the baseball sites more often. Time is getting close. | |||||
| 4 | Myboyjack ID: 4443038 Wed, Jan 24, 13:44 |
A simple application (which is all I'm ever capable of) would be to use the info/theory to search for undervalued pitchers or pitchers or will likely pitch better than a previous season's numbers like ERA, Whip and W/L might belie. I would look for pitchers who despite having a high K/IP and low BB/IP and low HR/BF ratios have had a bad ERA and/or H/IP the prior year. One might expect, according to the McCracken article, that such pitchers have been the victim of bad luck, rather than bad pitching, and should expect, with more favorable luck, a better year coming. Witness the 1999 G. Maddux vs. 2000 G. Maddux example. Now, who those pitchers might be, I'm not sure. I think the article lists B. Moehler as one. | |||||
| 5 | steve houpt ID: 5811592615 Wed, Jan 24, 14:12 |
McCrackens home page With more links to: DIPS explained DIPS explained Part II Myboyjack - This Defense Independent Pitching Stats 2000 has done some work in balancing pitchers 2000 stats (using the theory). Has NL and AL picthers. Can give a rough idea of 'lucky' and 'unlucky' pitchers in 2000: Note: Pitching stats link may take a while to load. | |||||
| 6 | Madman ID: 610552719 Wed, Jan 24, 15:14 |
Myboyjack has it right -- IF you buy his theory and arguments. Instinctively, I smell something a bit out-of-kilter with his statistical work. But he has some valid points that are likely to hold up. There are reasons this issue is confusing. One point that I'm sure will stand up to scrutiny -- once a pitcher allows a ball to be hit, things are somewhat out of the pitcher's control. This isn't too revolutionary by itself, however. The best bet, as goes his argument, for pitchers who will do well next year are likely those who will see their strikeout rate stay constant or improve. Further, if they had a "bad draw" this year in the sense that a number of the balls put into play were actually scored as hits, then they will have higher ERA and HA totals than they likely will next year. . . ----------------------------------------- I hate to say it, but two candidates stick out in my mind. David Wells vs. Mike Sirotka. His analysis would have the ChiSox winning this deal, since Wells was Unlucky relative to Sirotka last season. The other one is Roberto Hernandez who may see his K totals decline again . . meaning his effectiveness may fall. Damn. ------------------------------------------- The question is really: Is this analysis as important as what it sounds like? If he's right, then this is a revolutionary way to predict future baseball pitching performance. I'm not sold, however. Some issues: a) Any time you rely on a correlation of statistics across seasons, there is attrition from the data set. In other words, pitchers who really sucked last year get dropped by clubs presumably because they would have sucked worse this year. But, since they get dropped by clubs, these pitchers aren't in the data set. Ergo, the correlation between last years hits/ballinplay stats might be lower than it should be. Think about this criticism this way. Let's say that Torre sees Cone getting SHELLED this year. He's giving up tons of hits per ballsinplay because the hits are rockets. Do the Yankees start him again in 2001?? NO. The point being here, that those pitchers who have high hits/ballinplay because they are in trouble are getting pulled out of his data set by managers and such (although in Cone's case, he may come back, of course). Those who have high hits/ballsinplay because they are good pitchers with bad luck stay in his data set, making him believe that high hits/ballsinplay means nothing. But, in reality, smart managers have CAUSED this relationship to statistically disappear. Unfortunately, under this theory, this statistical relationship helps you very little pick a real sleeper, since you don't know if you're picking a sleeper versus picking one of those duds who's getting ready to lose his job permanently. At any rate, if you understand this point, congrats. You now understand the concept of "self-selection" and how it can bias statistics. This doesn't explain the variation among great pitchers, however . . . and this is a place where this tool could still be useful . . . Kevin Brown and Randy Johnson are due for slight comebacks this year, as were Maddux and Pedro from last year. . . b) How bad was Pedro in 1999? Plus, he got shelled a couple of times when hurt. And Neyer indicated he was in the top 40. Voros implied that he was horrible . . . Maddux clearly had a horrible start last season. How's Maddux hits/ballsinplay correlated throughout his career?? Even if a correlation doesn't exist for the whole sample, there could still be a systematic relationship between last year's stats and this year's . . . and these anecdotes don't convince me otherwise. c) I find it theoretically implausible that there is NOT an important relationship between the number of times you can get a 3rd strike past a batter and the ability to make the batter miss the meat of a pitch. Further, if you can strike out batters, when you get to a 2 strike count, surely they have to be more threatened and change their strokes a bit (as if anyone does this anymore). If Meadows gets 2 strikes on you, big whoop. But if Pedro gets 2 strikes on you, you're dead meat. A batter facing Meadows in this case is still likely to smash a ball somewhere. Against Pedro, because you're dying to just protect the plate, surely there's a greater chance of a dribbler, and surely this means a lower BA in that situation. Surely. But he says no . . . ---------------------------------- My personal hunch? There IS a ton of random chance in whether or not a batter gets a hit. However, he is implying that what is left after you take out K's and such is SOLELY random chance. And there's a big difference between those two statements, my friends. Nevertheless, I think it is worthwhile to check this out. I think we do tend to underestimate the effect of random chance in setting up hit totals, and ERA. I'm definitely going to be thinking of it -- especially in keeper-only leagues. Basically, look for pitchers who you think are otherwise decent who got a bad-luck sort of draw in the HA/ballsinplay stat . . . Sorry. This was supposed to be a short summary of his argument, and of a few criticisms! Aargh. | |||||
| 7 | Madman ID: 610552719 Wed, Jan 24, 15:18 | And I also just realized my Meadows/Pedro story wasn't super clear. If you have two strikes, and if you make contact and put the ball into play, I believe there is a higher chance that you will end up with a hit (non-HR) against Meadows than against Pedro. Ergo, I do not believe his full story. That's what I meant to say. | |||||
| 8 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Wed, Jan 24, 17:20 |
I took a look at Maddux' hits per balls in play since 92 and it was well above average every year besided 99. However, I don't think that this proves McCracken wrong. Remember that Maddux has himself in the field which is something that no other pitcher has. He makes twice as many plays as the average pitcher so that is a huge advantage. Another thing is that there is definitely some correlation. For example, some pitchers are more likely to induce grounders while others to get flyballs. You can't argue that a grounder has an equal chance of being a hit as a line drive. There is a lot more work to be done but this is a great start. Also, McCracken admits (in a letter to a friend of mine) that some hitters are better at getting hits/balls in play than others. In other words, a guy like Tony Gwynn clearly is very good at placing his balls. I guess that this is pretty obvious but I would think that if hitters can be good at it then pitchers can be too. This note is a little choppy. I've been discussing this with some friends of mine for the last couple of days and haven't come to any conclusion yet. I would like to see more numbers on pitchers careers. Another friend of mine sent a note to Neyer pointing out how Rivera's strikeout total is way down in the last 3 years yet his overall numbers aren't. Why? Because his hits/balls in play is unbelievable the last 3 years. 3 years straight. That sound like more than luck to me. | |||||
| 9 | sinozvee ID: 380322118 Wed, Jan 24, 18:55 |
A point against this theory. 1. Pitchers do hold some advantage for hits/balls in play when ahead in the count. Ahead in the count: .311/.311/.403 Behind in the count: .296/.296/.371 It follows then that a pitcher who throws more strikes - not just K's limits hits per balls in play. I asked McCracken about this. He wanted to chalk it up to the fact that better hiters get ahead of the count and as dgreds pointed out they do affect hits/balls in play. However, the opposite can be argued as well. The better pitchers get ahead of the count and they affect the hits/balls in play. As regards to the groundball v. flyball pitcher. McCracken claims in message 113 of the "AL CY Young" thread on rec.sports.baseball: "...if there is _any_ pattern in hit reduction on balls in play, it's that flyball pitchers are slightly better at it than groundballers. For the most part this is offset by the slight increase in extra base hits for flyballers. In none of the cases is the difference anything but very small, if it even exists." [the thread is referenced on McCracken's website] So, yes dgreds, McCracken is arguing that that a grounder has an equal chance of being a hit as a fly ball. | |||||
| 10 | sinozvee ID: 380322118 Wed, Jan 24, 18:57 |
Oops. I forgot to mention that the stats for ahead v. behind in the count are after all K,BB and HR's are removed from the data. | |||||
| 11 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Wed, Jan 24, 20:01 | Welcome to the boards Sinozvee and I hope that you're here to stay. McCracken certainly seems to have done his research on this one. I will have to investigate this more and I'm sure that we'll be seeing more articles on this stuff from the guys at BaseballProspectus and BigBadBaseball. | |||||
| 12 | The Pink Pimp ID: 36423223 Thu, Jan 25, 01:33 |
I should have known better than to open a Madman thread after 10pm. What was I thinking?!? Looks like I'll be dreaming about DIPS tonight. | |||||
| 13 | Myboyjack ID: 4443038 Thu, Jan 25, 07:49 | Thanks for the link, Steve. | |||||
| 14 | Madman ID: 610552719 Thu, Jan 25, 09:21 | PP -- sorry, dude! I hope you slept well. Nothing like counting DIPS to make me go to sleep! | |||||
| 15 | Madman ID: 610552719 Fri, Jan 26, 12:22 |
dgreds 8 Very good info. Actually, it does begin to disprove his assertion. Remember that he claimed that it was important for it to vary from year to year? Well, for all the pitchers he was comparing between 1999 and 2000, they obviously had the exact same pitcher defense between the two years. No, his assertion is that this statistic is basically blind luck. If you can figure out any way to predict it, you're pecking away at his argument. At least that's the way I'm reading it. And welcome, sinozvee. Hope to continue seeing more of you! Actually, given all this info., I don't think the question is if his assertion is kind of extreme, it's "how extreme is it?" In other words, does it still have any value left? I dunno. I wonder if you just can't look at a pitcher's line and say "He got lucky" and another pitcher's line and say "he got screwed", and that's about it. Do the DIPS stats help identify these folks in any meaningful way?? Watch Wells and Randy to see if they improve, and Pedro and KB to see if they gets worse, I suppose, eh? | |||||
| 16 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Fri, Jan 26, 13:04 | Read today's Neyer. It was very, very good. | |||||
| 17 | biliruben ID: 3502218 Fri, Jan 26, 13:38 | I agree. We even had Bill James weigh in on the subject! | |||||
| 18 | Madman ID: 610552719 Fri, Jan 26, 22:48 |
Yep. Craig Wright pretty much told McCracken to go home and play with his toys. Pretty cool. Although he really didn't get into the reasons why McCracken was likely mislead (two years of pitcher data, the self-selection I mentioned in post 6, a reasonably large component of randomness, etc.). Just the fact that there are indeed ground ball and fly ball pitchers indicates that a pitcher has SOME control over the manner in which the baseball is hit. . . Yes, I know. McCracken argues that that particular form of control is irrelevant to base hits. Yet, the presence of SOME control should make him cautious. . . I'm also somewhat skeptical of Bill James' claim about PICBA. He may be right, but if McCracken is wrong, then suddenly PICBA becomes a whole heck of a lot less interesting, since pitcher x's PICBA will be heavily influenced by the other pitchers on their team . . . | |||||
| 19 | sinozvee ID: 380322118 Sun, Jan 28, 18:50 |
Madman, your exactly right about the problem with James's PICBA. In fact he himself raises the issue in the article: "Another theory is that it may have had to do with composition pitching staff -- in other words, that the team hit percentage was determined by the pitchers on the staff (the exact opposite of McCracken's thesis), and that John bore a particular relationship to that pitching staff." Kinda takes the meat out of the whole stat. | |||||
| 20 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Mon, Jan 29, 12:54 | Another good article on the topic by Keith Woolner. | |||||
| 21 | Voros McCracken ID: 170363015 Tue, Jan 30, 15:36 |
I heard from someone that there was a discussion going on here on this subject. I think I'd like to start by going through the ahead and behind in the count data above. Sinozvee wrote: "It follows then that a pitcher who throws more strikes - not just K's limits hits per balls in play." Well let's look at what we got. Let's suppose we have pitcher A, let's say pitcher A had 467 at bats with balls in play. Let's say, just for the sake of argument, he was _ahead in the count on every single at bat_! Now let's take pitcher B. Let's say pitcher B had 467 at bats on balls in play as well, and let's say Pitcher B was behind on every single count. Using the above numbers, there's a .015 point difference on hits per balls in play between being ahead and behind in the count. .015 * 467 = 7 hits. So the difference in a season between a pitcher who is ahead in every single count and one who is behind in every single count, comes to about 7 hits a season. Now to turn to a real world example, I'll use 1-0, and 0-1 counts at the moment because that's what I have available at the moment (I can do the same thing for ahead and behind later if you want). The difference on hits in play rate between the two is .0097 points. Let's take two pitchers, one who always seems to be ahead and has great control, Pedro Martinez, to the often wild rarely ahead rookie, Dan Reichert. Martinez was ahead 0-1 411 times and behind 1-0 296 times a ratio of 1.39. The league average was 1.01. Reichert was ahead 0-1 248 times and behind 1-0 342 times, a ratio of .725. However not all of these resulted in the ball being put into the field of play. In play Martinez was ahead 0-1 203 times, behind 1-0 174 times. Reichert was 178 and 216 respectively. So Pedro had a total of around 14 more balls in play when he was 0-1 in the count than a league average pitcher. Reichert had a total of 19 balls in play 0-1 less than a league average pitcher. By multiplying that .0097 by those numbers, Pedro would give up .14 less hits in a season than a league average pitcher on balls in play. Recihert would allow .185 more hits in a season than a league average pitcher on balls in play. So because of Pedro's ability to get ahead 0-1 over Reichert's inability to, he would ***in an entire season*** figure to give up about .325 less hits on balls in play than Dan Reichert. The same arguments apply to an extent with ground balls and fly balls though you probably could do enough legwork to get a few hits difference in a season between the two. It would be balanced that the flyball hits would be slightly more damaging since they'd be slightly more likely to go for extra bases. | |||||
| 22 | Myboyjack ID: 4443038 Tue, Jan 30, 18:48 | If Voros McCracken is really defending his article on the Guru's message boards, then things have reached a whole new level of coolness around here ;) What's next....is Bill James a gurupie? | |||||
| 23 | Bill James ID: 357252920 Tue, Jan 30, 19:50 | Hi, I'm Bill James. I've been checking out these message boards for the past year or so. I just wanted to say hi to all of my fellow gurupies out there. You probably know me by my other name, 'Strike One'. I hope I can continue to provide insightful, misspelled analysis to you again this upcoming season. ;} | |||||
| 24 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Wed, Jan 31, 09:50 | Mr. McCracken, do you have data for the last 10 years? It seems to me that Maddux throughout the years (besides 99) has been well above league average in h/bip. Do you really believe that it has nothing to do with the pitcher? You mentioned that flyball pitchers are slightly better at h/bip than groundball pitchers so you are already admitting that there is some control that the pitcher has over the stat. | |||||
| 25 | Voros McCracken ID: 440143120 Wed, Jan 31, 20:15 |
I think some things need to be defined in terms of control here. What I've been saying is that among major league pitchers, the differences in this ability are very very small. Fly balls may be somewhat less often hits than ground balls, but are there any pitchers who allow enough more flyballs than ground balls to make much difference at all? The simple facts are that if we looked at each pitcher's career hits in play rate at the end of 1999, and used it to predict what it would be in 2000, that prediction would not be any better (slightly worse in fact), than just predicting .300 for everybody and going home. Is Greg Maddux better at this than the average pitcher? I don't know. He may or may not be. But this is the pitcher whose rate in 1999 was 83rd out of 89 pitchers with 162 innings or more (Pedro Martinez, incidentally was 82nd). When the stat correlates with any strength to the ability, the best ability players rarely rank among the worst. In 1999 Omar Daal was 3rd out of 89 in the stat. In 2000 he was 79th out of 88. As for roto implications: I looked at the pitchers with 162 or more innings in 1999 and took the 11 lowest and 11 highest in hits in play. I threw one out from each group because neither pitched much (Jose Rosado and Bobby Witt). In 1999 the groups looked like this: Average pitcher in group in 1999 ERA W L WHIP Low HIP 3.72 15 9 10.89 High HIP 4.47 15 12 12.73 In 2000 for these same pitchers, their stats were: Average pitcher in group in 2000 ERA W L WHIP Low HIP 4.85 8 12 12.09 High HIP 4.21 12 10 11.75 | |||||
| 26 | Madman ID: 48048288 Thu, Feb 01, 10:37 | Wow. It appears I have missed some incredible turn of events here at Rotoguru.com! Very cool. To the points: 1) Regarding McCracken 21 You persuaded me about the meaninglessness of the first pitch when you stated that there was only a .0097 difference in BA. From there on out, it is clear that there is little effect of pitch-counts. However, this essentially just tests the power of the first pitch. I think it would be more effective if the analysis was done for each count-pair combination (i.e., 2-1 v. 1-2, etc.). 2) I think the most troubling criticism of your analysis, McCracken, stems from the reliace solely on 1999 v. 2000 data. Effectively, this means you are making large claims based on a few data points. Related to this is the notion that each pitcher, like Pedro, had the same ability for each of the two years. Obviously, in 1999, he got shelled a couple of times because of shoulder problems. Similarly, it has been widely reported that Maddux (and Glavine) were suffering from strike-zone shock early in the year. Little events like this can potentially dominate an analysis. 3) More troubling is the assertion that "When the stat correlates with any strength to the ability, the best ability players rarely rank among the worst." This is a blanket statement that is rather strong. First, for any two years, or for any 22 pitchers, etc., you must define "rarely" for the argument to be persuasive. Secondly, like almost all sabermetricians, you are taking the evolution of the statistics as being independent from the framework in which they are decided. For one example, manager decisions can play a direct role, quite often, in statistical outcomes. The most egregious example of this concerns the studies of minor league ball stats versus major league stats. The correlation or predictive power of minor leaguers into major league stats is potentially driven more by the keen eyes of GM's and managers who promote those who will be able to reflect their minor league statistics. This should be accounted for in such studies. In this example, a similar problem occurs when comparing 1999 to 2000. A general comparison of covariation of the statistic between those two years relies on selection of a sample, which has been previously selected by managers. Therefore, this leads one to even question the meaning of the 11 v. 11 v. 11 v. 11 experiment you gave in post 25. Your interpretation of those stats is that the statistic itself is meaningless. An alternative interpretation is that managers who had a good pitcher in 1999 stuck with the same good pitcher longer than they should have under conditions of arm fatigue, etc., thereby rendering the experiment meaningless. Between these various possibilities -- 1999 being a "rare" year, manager influence of the statistics (i.e., self-selection), etc., I remain unconvinced. An interesting exercise to pass a few winter days with, however ;-). Sorry for the ugly post. I am having trouble with my browser. Hopefully it's still legible . . . | |||||
| 27 | Myboyjack ID: 4443038 Thu, Feb 01, 11:00 |
Madman, help a poor, statistically challenged soul out here: Is your main criticism of McCracken that his sample size is too small and that because of its limited sampling that the other factors you listed (manager selection, e.g.) play too big a role in the experiment? Is there a smaple size that would be satisfactory? | |||||
| 28 | dgreds ID: 2411291911 Thu, Feb 01, 12:12 |
Just to add one thing to Madman's post. Mr McCracken, you wrote that "When the stat correlates with any strength to the ability, the best ability players rarely rank among the worst." Yet we see that Maddux who is usually very good at h/bip ranked among the worst in 99. Maddux went from averaging .813 strikeouts per inning in 98 (14th in the NL) to .620 in 99. I'm not sure exactly where that ranked in the NL but not that high amongst pitchers who threw at least 162 innings. Yet the number of strikeouts that a pitcher clearly correlates with the pitcher's strength. Don't you think that 99 was just a fluke and that really we can be relatively certain that Maddux will be above league average in h/bip in 2001? Just as we can be pretty certain that he'll be above .7 ks per inning. | |||||
| 29 | Madman ID: 146191423 Thu, Feb 01, 13:08 |
Myboyjack Yes, bottom line, I haven't seen enough data to convince me. Small samples are significant issues. Are there other explanations that might explain the disappearance of the importance of the HBIP stat from 1999-2000? Right now, I think that it is quite possible. The second criticism regarding the affect of manager interference is at once perhaps less important in magnitude in this particular case, but a more pervasive sort of criticism that should lead all sabermetricians to be reasonably cautious. It's a factor that is rarely considered, but it should be, IMO. | |||||
| 30 | Voros McCracken ID: 440143120 Sat, Feb 03, 01:18 |
dgreds, With Maddux and K/9IP, he finished below average in 1999, but nowhere near the bottom ahead of 30 or so pitchers, he also didn't quite crack the top 10 in 1998. In any case, no we really can't expect Maddux to be better than the Braves team rate this year and maybe not even the league rate. Maybe he will and maybe he won't. If you want to ask the same about Tim Wakefield, then I'll say, well maybe Wakefield. But there isn't enough there to convict as far as Maddux is concerned. His career rate is less than 10 points less than that of his team's, I can't seem to figure out a way to predict hits in play next season any better than team average rates (and whether anybody believes me, I've tried as hard as anyone to do so). If I said "yes he will" just be agreeable, I'd be going against what the numbers are telling me. They're saying "Greg Maddux may or may not be above average at this next year, and damned if we can figure it out." Oh and on Madman's issue of sample size. The original study was actually done involving 503 pitchers from 1993-1999. It has since expanded to include 7700+ pitchers from 1901-2000 with league adjustments. The two correlations were virtually identical .16. The rates for only those pitchers who switched teams (to avoid park adn defense correlation) for both were near .11 (the 1901-2000 sample was lower). For the former, team rate predicted hits in play the following year better than pitcher rate, for the latter league average prdeicted better than pitcher rate. The differences here are very small, and considering how difficult it is to project pitcher performance, I don't think there's any real value in assuming differences in pitcher ability for individual player evaluation. In terms of an eventually understanding of the entire dynamic, I'm sure there's lots that can be done to tweak and modify a pitcher's hits in play rate under various conditions and set ups. But I'm not entirely sure I ever implied there wasn't. | |||||
| 31 | Myboyjack Leader ID: 4443038 Tue, Jan 22, 2002, 15:16 | Hmmm....Rob Neyer hasn't abandoned this idea at all. Here's the link to his column today. Seem's like applying it to different seasons (or parts of a season) for the same pitcher might make a little sense. | |||||
| 32 | Catfish Sustainer ID: 9657107 Wed, Jan 23, 2002, 10:21 | Classic sign that spring training isn't far away ... Madman's analytical threads start getting BUTTed. | |||||
| 33 | IMPORTANT READ ID: 90142415 Thu, Jan 24, 2002, 15:25 |
Why do you guys continue to waste your time with this crap??? QUESTION: Does all this number crunching really help your fantasy baseball teams? HISTORY LESSON: Anybody remember all those ridiculous pitching charts Madman wasted his time on last year? I bet no one benefitted from them. Not even Madman himself. In the Smallworld game last season, I remember him making numerous bone-headed pitcher trades. It got to the point that he had to quit in the middle of the season when stuck with a WWR in the 10,000's. Pretty pathetic. I refraise... QUESTION: Does all this number crunching really help your fantasy baseball teams? | |||||
| 34 | RecycledSpinalFluid ID: 35928913 Thu, Jan 24, 2002, 16:03 | Somehow I believe an abandoned Madman team still finished higher than some gutless wonder who can't post under their true id. | |||||
| 35 | Myboyjack Leader ID: 4443038 Thu, Jan 24, 2002, 19:31 | Yeah, RSF, I noticed that too. - he had to go to a separate computer (his, "I'm gonna' be a jerk-off now model, I suppoose) Very brave. | |||||
| 36 | Khahan ID: 12432113 Fri, Jan 25, 2002, 07:54 |
Important read...maybe you are missing the point. Whether all this number crunching helps a team or not, did you ever think that maybe people just enjoy this angle of analysis of baseball? And maybe those people enjoy discussing it? Personally I don't think this particular discussion really has much bearing on fantasy teams. Its an interesting look at pitcher performance in the real world, but I think they are missing the mark. | |||||
| 37 | KrazyKoalaBears Donor ID: 266182910 Fri, Jan 25, 2002, 11:09 | I'm wondering how much "Important Read" can comprehend even basic stats considering a 10,000 WWR. No offense, but just using the Guru's sortables and these message boards should be able to give you a 5,000 WWR or better. Don't believe me? Look here. (185 and higher would appear to be abandoned based on trade counts) | |||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | ||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | |||||||