Your basing weights on something that is not proportional to the PLUS created but based on how many times something happened, not how good it is!

So because a single happens more often it is weighted as much as a HR which happens less often…
TOTALLY ignoring the significance of the act based on frequency and not worth!

So a guy who hits a lot of HRs gets less credit for what he does because the rest of the league hits mostly singles!

It is a very bad way to weight performance.

Let me ask you this…
If lets say this year NO ONE hits a single will HRs be multiplied by an even lower number than a single will?
Will their importance all of a sudden be diminished because they are not as rare as they were last year?

Not a very good way to calculate linear weights if you ask me!

So why don’t you tell us HOW he came up with his weights and stop arguing for the validity of something you yourself don’t even understand!

Hurry get that google out genius!

and why does Riveria have low BABIP? Maybe because he’s an amazing pitcher and is really tough to hit? So if that’s true(and it is) then doesn’t that prove my point that the pitcher CAN control how many hits he gives up?

And if you look BABIP, most of the time, the bad pitchers have HIGH BABIP’s and good pitchers have low BABIP’s. Which proves my point that the pitcher CAN control the amount of hits he gives up. Good pitchers are tough to hit, and that’s why they have low BABIP’s. and bad pitchers are easy to hit, which is why they have high BABIP’s

The pitcher has a lot of control over the hits and runs he gives up, Donal.

Granted, striking out 20% of the time doesn’t help him much either.

Its never one thing. You need to see the whole picture.

You gotta love all these new stats lol.

Jeff Francoeur had .270 BABIP last year. I was right, he isn’t bad just unlucky.

If the pitcher can’t control the outcome, then the hitter can’t either. Right?

And yet everything you say is factually wrong.

huh.

His Metrics are filled with ASSUMPTIONS and CONSTANTS that were pretty much picked out of thin air using other metrics he favors as important over another!

His concept that singles lead to more runs therefore are more important is wrong merely on the fact that importance is not the reason they score more but because they occurr more often than a HR!

So in his eyes since sinlges are involved in more runs produced he feels they have more important than something that ALWAYS produces a run.

BIAS!

And no there is no reason to continue this discussion unless you can prove that my numbers in the FIP example are IMPOSSIBLE in reality or you are willing to think for yourself and stop listening to some guy who has a philosophy about baseball he is slanting metrics by cherry picking data in an attempt to prove that philosophy is true!

So, you have no idea of his work.

Is there a reason to continue this discussion?

Oh wait, more stupidity from you

“As for sample size. If a metric is a correct and INFALLIBLE metric then sample size is irrelevant. Times them all by 10 and do the math. Same result!
Larger sample size still the wrong answer.”

I really can’t help you. This is beyond assinine.

Sample size is only important when your GUESSING based on percentages not statistical analysis unless that analysis is INCOMPLETE as is the case with FIP because it ignores data and therefore needs a large sample to hide the fact it is flawed!
Basically because FIP is guessing due to the fact it ignored data. It’s analysis is incomplete!

As for sample size. If a metric is a correct and INFALLIBLE metric then sample size is irrelevant. Times them all by 10 and do the math. Same result!
Larger sample size still the wrong answer.

Stats that are used to create metrics are not STATIC!
They change! Unless it is impossible to create those numbers in real life any number used is valid when testing an equation or metric associated with one!

Or is it “common sense”? The same thing that tells us the Earth is flat and black guys can’t play baseball?

“The only way you can prove my example wrong is to prove those numbers can NEVER occurr in real life.”

Thats not how logic works. You have to prove your premise. Asking someone to prove a negative is dishonest.

Tango addressed why he assigned each event the value he did, and its not because he likes certain ones better than others.

You want to apply it to real pitchers go ahead!
But do it for ALL pitchers and you will see where some pitcher has a higher FIP despite him being clearly a worse pitcher than someone else.
All because you ignored a big part of what happens while a pitcher is out there!

If a pitcher walks NO ONE (granted unlikely) but gives up all the walks someone else would give up as HITS, his FIP will be decent despite the fact he pitches batting practice!

As trivial is the gravitational pull of Merceury and Pluto may be if you don’t take them into account when trying to calculate a trajectory you will wind up lost in space!

To deem them unworthy or to be ignored will lead you to the wrong answer!
Probability might make it seem like it is the correct calculation but that doesn’t mean the metric is CORRECT or without flaw!

If you really want to get the correct answer EVERY TIME (which is what analysis is all about) then you should not ignore aspects simply on the basis that other ignore them!
Cause then all your doing is making a metric thats as useless as all the others!

And it usually happens because you KNOW what result you want and fudge the equation to get it instead of taking all the relevent data you have and seeing what the calculation SHOULD so that the equation is always true!