not sure which iteration I'm using, but the one I have looks fine. 1s in 90s, 00s, 10s for Rivera.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
*** VD 10 Commentary Thread ***
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mjl View PostNo, it's something in the way you imported the data into the spreadsheet. If you look in the GDrive folder (again, that's http://tinyurl.com/neutralmilkhotelsucks) and look in the CH.csv and CP.csv files, those columns are correct and don't match the spreadsheet version.
Comment
-
Originally posted by revo View PostUsing the spreadsheet I created since we started doing these things 10+ years ago! Frankly, I'm surprised anyone who's done more than a handful of these doesn't have their own spreadsheets/rankings using the career and BY stats.---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostI'll have a look again tomorrow. I don't see why it would only be the Decade data that is out of sync? It was all imported at once ... surely everything should be out of sync?I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505Instead of adding hundreds or thousands of lines to an old spreadsheet that has the wrong career stats and tons of missing best years, I just rolled my own calculations and rankings into the new sheet. I'm surprised that anyone who's done more than a handful of these would use an old spreadsheet to do that, since you're essentially ensuring that something will be wrong. I've always downloaded the new sheet after others (thanks to all you others out there!) have added the new years and updated career information and then calculated my rankings on the new sheet. I usually then use two spreadsheets per draft --- one for the "real" draft and one for projections.
Comment
-
Originally posted by revo View PostAdding new career #s and new BYs to a career/BY spreadsheet took about a solid 30-40 minutes, give or take a bathroom break.I'm not expecting to grow flowers in the desert...
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505Inputting my rankings into a new sheet takes about 3 minutes, tops. I literally have to copy/paste 6 things and drag the formula and that's it. Plus, I don't have to identify which BYs are new, which career #s need updating, etc. In fact, I was using the VD 9 spreadsheet for this draft since I already had rankings in there but got annoyed at having to do the new BYs and update all the career #s every time a damn error popped up. So I put my rankings in the new sheet and that's when I noticed that all the decades stuff is wrong on the new one.
And after all this time, all these gazillions of drafts, I still don't have a very good ranking system for pitchers. I just am not clever enough to come up with weighted averages, where a 2.50 ERA over 2000 IP is worth much more than a 2.50 ERA over 200 IP. I end up with really random relievers very near the top of my list.
Comment
-
Originally posted by eldiablo505And after all this time, all these gazillions of drafts, I still don't have a very good ranking system for pitchers. I just am not clever enough to come up with weighted averages, where a 2.50 ERA over 2000 IP is worth much more than a 2.50 ERA over 200 IP. I end up with really random relievers very near the top of my list.
It's not perfect, but it works OK.
So for instance:
Walter Johnson has a very low ERA and WHIP in his 1913 year.
ERA = 51
WHIP = 71
The IP is considerably higher than the average, so the multiplier is 1.8 (based on 346 IP)
So his final ERA and WHIP scores are:
ERA = 51x1.8= 91.8
WHIP = 71x1.8= 127.8
Mariano Rivera also has a very low ERA and WHIP for his 2008
ERA = 33
WHIP = 75
But his IP is much lower. His multiplier is 0.4
So his final ERA and WHIP scores are:
ERA = 33x0.4= 13.2
WHIP = 75x0.4= 30
George Bradley with his 548 IP has a 2.8 multiplier:
ERA = 45x2.8 = 126
WHIP = 33x2.8 = 92.4
By contrast:
Hardie Henderson's 1885 had 539 IP of garbage:
ERA = -72x2.8 = -201.6
WHIP = -60x2.8 = -168
Low Ratio, high IP guys get murdered in the rankings.
Comment
-
Originally posted by heyelander View Postthat's more like it...
but what are these ranking things you all keep talking about?If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
- Terence McKenna
Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)
How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige
Comment
-
For multiplicative scoring, I would suggest
1. Find the expected ratio of the below average (but not worst) teams.
For example, in vd2, an average career era would be around 2.92, a "below average" era would be around 2.94 (good enough to stay out of the bottom four)
2. Find the expected average ip per pitcher
In vd2, this average career ip would be around 2450 ip.
Then for a given pitcher, the scoring of their career era would be (cip/2450)*(2.92-cera)/([delta cera])
[delta cera] is a value you need to come up with - perhaps it is related to the difference between quartiles (e.g. in this case abs(2.92-2.94) = .02). I personally like to work the standard deviation in there.people called me an idiot for burning popcorn in the microwave, but i know the real truth. - nullnor
Comment
-
Originally posted by DMT View PostExactly, VDing is an art not a science!---------------------------------------------
Champagne for breakfast and a Sherman in my hand !
---------------------------------------------
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
Comment
Comment