Jimmie Foxx is unjammable

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@skepple15 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Guys! Stop! Unless you’ve taken college statistics it is impossible for you to understand a stat in regards to sports so just stop! It’s impossible.

Sabermetrics is using some complex statistical analysis. Possibly too complex. And for most people not only do they not understand HOW some of them are conceived but the underlying principles that go into it.

For example being that you wanted to comment. Please answer the following

  1. What is the TOTAL formula used to determine WAR.

  2. What statistical procedure are used and why.

  3. What are some principles used to determine which procedures to use.

Most people including yourself can’t answer that

Here is the formula for WAR

https://ibb.co/wQSypf2

I've already shared the formula for wRC+.

Now show me how wRC+ is BASED on WAR (not just use some of the same components).

Your Copy paste skills are next level. Yeah but to truly understand it you need to explain or at least understand the how the component variables are created and the reason why. Do you understand league adjustment. Why are those stats added. Do they have equal bake and how do you know this. If not should there be a coefficient.

Whatever dude, you have no idea clearly. But please talk amongst yourselves. You all seem to have a clue.

Yes, like I said - I'm copy pasting it because it saves me time.

You asked for the full formula so I gave it to you.

Ok I am sure it has nothing to do with you not being able to put it into your own words. Ok...last word is yours. You are just not knowledgeable enough to have a conversation about sabermetrics. This is just silly at this point. Like I said like explaining a lightning to a baboon

I'll say it again because you missed the 2nd half of the comment.

wRC+ uses weighted runs above average and league averages but to say that because it uses those it is therefore based on WAR and the entire summation that makes up WAR is a ridiculous statement.

👍🏾

That's great.

Also, you requesting me to rephrase a mathematical formula is downright ridiculous.

It's like requesting me to rephrase a2+b2=c2...

Nope i am requesting nothing from you. I am done if you are done...

Btw that formula states that there is a specific and constant relationship that exists between the sides of a right triangle.
More importantly, this is based on proofs and theorems that exist objectively in geometry and algebra.

WAR is NOT something that has the necessary underlying proof work or theorems that would make it valid. Trust me when I say that WAR has not gone under the level of scrutiny via proofs that Pythagorean’s theorem has. Wait did you just compare the Pythagorean theorem with sabermetrics. 🤣

Oh wait, I am sorry I went over your head.

Anyway. To answer your question..I request nothing. I have nothing left to add that you could comprehend

5000 IQ Redditor right here guys, just admit it, we're no match

Cool. I am going to wait for you to say something interesting or relevant.

You definitely did not wait

What am I suppose to do with this. You are failing at insulting me or proving me wrong. I think it’s because you don’t seem to have a point.why are you even bothering commenting. Is it because with all the bad posts you have made I am the only one who gives you attention. Do you just need a hug? I may know a bit about stats but you are beyond my ability comprehend.

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Can I ask that you do one big favor for me? Can you take random MLB players from any era maybe like 20 random guys from one position. The more random the better. HOF, joe Carter level, Alex Gordon level and Luis Polonia level.

Could you find their WAR and there wRC+ And find the correlation between those two data sets. As I am sure you know that r will probably be between 1.0 and 0.9. Can you explain why that happens.

I am not smart enough to understand but I think with your statistical mastery you could figure it all out.

Ahh, I see - so you aren't done after all? How unfortunate and yet so predictable.

Here are the stats of Mark McGwire from 1993:

wRC+ 211 - WAR 1.5

Notice how your narrative is instatly shattered? Because wRC+ doesn't for example take into account games played?

Great point, that is why you shouldn’t use a single year but their career numbers. But I thought you would have figured that out.

Ah I see - but wouldn't the numbers of a single season be the same as career numbers if wRC+ was BASED on WAR? Why exactly would it change?

Notice also the seasonal numbers from Trout and Cobb above.

Ty Cobb had a 206 wRC+ and a 10.3 WAR, but the next season had a 11.0 WAR but only a 189 wRC+? Should they not increase in conjunction? Why is that Mike Trout, playing also CF had only a 167 wRC+ while still having a 10.1 WAR? It's almost as if there are some differences in how these statistics are achieved?

Oh boy. 🤔 You really don’t know how to do this do you? For a second I thought you might know what you were talking about and we could’ve had some fun.
Well you wanted me to admit when I was wrong. I was dead wrong thinking you had a clue about statistical analysis.

Dude, never mind. Let go back to when I was sorry about not knowing or whatever I said two post ago. Beliebve what you want dude. You are right. Just don’t apply for a job that requires any level of depth with statistical analysis.

You really are quick to respond.

Here's what I added to the above post.

"How about Mickey Mantle.

In 1955 he had a wRC+ of 179 and a WAR of 9.8
In 1964 he had a wRC+ of 176 and a WAR of 5.5

Curious.

To be honest I'm not even sure what you are requesting because wRC+ is measured as a career avg and WAR is measured cumulatively - so what would be the point in comparing career statistics between the two? Do you want me to manually calculate the cumulative sum of various players total wRC+? Considering I was able to find the above differences with such a quick search do you not think I would be able to find similar differences from this type of a search as well?"

And If I show you two players with the same career WAR but a different cumulative wRC+ for their entire career, then what?

No, it’s all good. Not asking for anything. I think we have pushed our conversation to the limits. We are done here unless there is something else you need from me. Otherwise, you appear to have plateaued. I don’t feel like giving a lesson. Besides you have shown there is little I could teach you.

@abbyspapa said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@skepple15 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

.264/.309/.498

.269/.320/.511

Just wanted to go to a point brought up in another thread

That's Joe Carters "great" 1992 season in which he finished 3rd in MVP voting, compared to Eduardo Escobar's 2019 season

I guess the one stats class I took in university really helped me make that comparison...

.257/.317/.401 - Cal Ripken's splits from 1989 when he also finished 3rd in MVP voting.

Comparing specific players from different eras often doesn't work well. Advanced stats are certainly useful but they do not tell the whole story.

Carter was by no means a superstar, but overall he was an above average player compared to the other players of his era.

Funny when I say this all the trolls come out. You said it very well.

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@skepple15 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Guys! Stop! Unless you’ve taken college statistics it is impossible for you to understand a stat in regards to sports so just stop! It’s impossible.

Sabermetrics is using some complex statistical analysis. Possibly too complex. And for most people not only do they not understand HOW some of them are conceived but the underlying principles that go into it.

For example being that you wanted to comment. Please answer the following

  1. What is the TOTAL formula used to determine WAR.

  2. What statistical procedure are used and why.

  3. What are some principles used to determine which procedures to use.

Most people including yourself can’t answer that

Here is the formula for WAR

https://ibb.co/wQSypf2

I've already shared the formula for wRC+.

Now show me how wRC+ is BASED on WAR (not just use some of the same components).

Your Copy paste skills are next level. Yeah but to truly understand it you need to explain or at least understand the how the component variables are created and the reason why. Do you understand league adjustment. Why are those stats added. Do they have equal bake and how do you know this. If not should there be a coefficient.

Whatever dude, you have no idea clearly. But please talk amongst yourselves. You all seem to have a clue.

Yes, like I said - I'm copy pasting it because it saves me time.

You asked for the full formula so I gave it to you.

Ok I am sure it has nothing to do with you not being able to put it into your own words. Ok...last word is yours. You are just not knowledgeable enough to have a conversation about sabermetrics. This is just silly at this point. Like I said like explaining a lightning to a baboon

I'll say it again because you missed the 2nd half of the comment.

wRC+ uses weighted runs above average and league averages but to say that because it uses those it is therefore based on WAR and the entire summation that makes up WAR is a ridiculous statement.

👍🏾

That's great.

Also, you requesting me to rephrase a mathematical formula is downright ridiculous.

It's like requesting me to rephrase a2+b2=c2...

Nope i am requesting nothing from you. I am done if you are done...

Btw that formula states that there is a specific and constant relationship that exists between the sides of a right triangle.
More importantly, this is based on proofs and theorems that exist objectively in geometry and algebra.

WAR is NOT something that has the necessary underlying proof work or theorems that would make it valid. Trust me when I say that WAR has not gone under the level of scrutiny via proofs that Pythagorean’s theorem has. Wait did you just compare the Pythagorean theorem with sabermetrics. 🤣

Oh wait, I am sorry I went over your head.

Anyway. To answer your question..I request nothing. I have nothing left to add that you could comprehend

5000 IQ Redditor right here guys, just admit it, we're no match

Cool. I am going to wait for you to say something interesting or relevant.

You definitely did not wait

What am I suppose to do with this. You are failing at insulting me or proving me wrong. I think it’s because you don’t seem to have a point.why are you even bothering commenting. Is it because with all the bad posts you have made I am the only one who gives you attention. Do you just need a hug? I may know a bit about stats but you are beyond my ability comprehend.

I guess that my response was, in fact, interesting enough to respond to

Either that, or you don't understand what ignoring someone else is

You can do it! I believe in you

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Can I ask that you do one big favor for me? Can you take random MLB players from any era maybe like 20 random guys from one position. The more random the better. HOF, joe Carter level, Alex Gordon level and Luis Polonia level.

Could you find their WAR and there wRC+ And find the correlation between those two data sets. As I am sure you know that r will probably be between 1.0 and 0.9. Can you explain why that happens.

I am not smart enough to understand but I think with your statistical mastery you could figure it all out.

Ahh, I see - so you aren't done after all? How unfortunate and yet so predictable.

Here are the stats of Mark McGwire from 1993:

wRC+ 211 - WAR 1.5

Notice how your narrative is instatly shattered? Because wRC+ doesn't for example take into account games played?

Great point, that is why you shouldn’t use a single year but their career numbers. But I thought you would have figured that out.

Ah I see - but wouldn't the numbers of a single season be the same as career numbers if wRC+ was BASED on WAR? Why exactly would it change?

Notice also the seasonal numbers from Trout and Cobb above.

Ty Cobb had a 206 wRC+ and a 10.3 WAR, but the next season had a 11.0 WAR but only a 189 wRC+? Should they not increase in conjunction? Why is that Mike Trout, playing also CF had only a 167 wRC+ while still having a 10.1 WAR? It's almost as if there are some differences in how these statistics are achieved?

Oh boy. 🤔 You really don’t know how to do this do you? For a second I thought you might know what you were talking about and we could’ve had some fun.
Well you wanted me to admit when I was wrong. I was dead wrong thinking you had a clue about statistical analysis.

Dude, never mind. Let go back to when I was sorry about not knowing or whatever I said two post ago. Beliebve what you want dude. You are right. Just don’t apply for a job that requires any level of depth with statistical analysis.

You really are quick to respond.

Here's what I added to the above post.

"How about Mickey Mantle.

In 1955 he had a wRC+ of 179 and a WAR of 9.8
In 1964 he had a wRC+ of 176 and a WAR of 5.5

Curious.

To be honest I'm not even sure what you are requesting because wRC+ is measured as a career avg and WAR is measured cumulatively - so what would be the point in comparing career statistics between the two? Do you want me to manually calculate the cumulative sum of various players total wRC+? Considering I was able to find the above differences with such a quick search do you not think I would be able to find similar differences from this type of a search as well?"

And If I show you two players with the same career WAR but a different cumulative wRC+ for their entire career, then what?

No, it’s all good. Not asking for anything. I think we have pushed our conversation to the limits. We are done here unless there is something else you need from me. Otherwise, you appear to have plateaued. I don’t feel like giving a lesson. Besides you have shown there is little I could teach you.

I wonder why that is...

Chipper Jones, Career WAR 84.6 - career avg for wRC+ 141
Adrian Beltre, Career WAR 84.1 - career avg. for wRC+ 115

That is a much bigger difference than what you stated should be possible.

How strange...

I'm now convinced that you have never actually researched how these stats are collected. The likeliest scenario is that you thought that you could somehow bluff or intimidate your way through this discussion without ever having to justify your position.

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@skepple15 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Guys! Stop! Unless you’ve taken college statistics it is impossible for you to understand a stat in regards to sports so just stop! It’s impossible.

Sabermetrics is using some complex statistical analysis. Possibly too complex. And for most people not only do they not understand HOW some of them are conceived but the underlying principles that go into it.

For example being that you wanted to comment. Please answer the following

  1. What is the TOTAL formula used to determine WAR.

  2. What statistical procedure are used and why.

  3. What are some principles used to determine which procedures to use.

Most people including yourself can’t answer that

Here is the formula for WAR

https://ibb.co/wQSypf2

I've already shared the formula for wRC+.

Now show me how wRC+ is BASED on WAR (not just use some of the same components).

Your Copy paste skills are next level. Yeah but to truly understand it you need to explain or at least understand the how the component variables are created and the reason why. Do you understand league adjustment. Why are those stats added. Do they have equal bake and how do you know this. If not should there be a coefficient.

Whatever dude, you have no idea clearly. But please talk amongst yourselves. You all seem to have a clue.

Yes, like I said - I'm copy pasting it because it saves me time.

You asked for the full formula so I gave it to you.

Ok I am sure it has nothing to do with you not being able to put it into your own words. Ok...last word is yours. You are just not knowledgeable enough to have a conversation about sabermetrics. This is just silly at this point. Like I said like explaining a lightning to a baboon

I'll say it again because you missed the 2nd half of the comment.

wRC+ uses weighted runs above average and league averages but to say that because it uses those it is therefore based on WAR and the entire summation that makes up WAR is a ridiculous statement.

👍🏾

That's great.

Also, you requesting me to rephrase a mathematical formula is downright ridiculous.

It's like requesting me to rephrase a2+b2=c2...

Nope i am requesting nothing from you. I am done if you are done...

Btw that formula states that there is a specific and constant relationship that exists between the sides of a right triangle.
More importantly, this is based on proofs and theorems that exist objectively in geometry and algebra.

WAR is NOT something that has the necessary underlying proof work or theorems that would make it valid. Trust me when I say that WAR has not gone under the level of scrutiny via proofs that Pythagorean’s theorem has. Wait did you just compare the Pythagorean theorem with sabermetrics. 🤣

Oh wait, I am sorry I went over your head.

Anyway. To answer your question..I request nothing. I have nothing left to add that you could comprehend

5000 IQ Redditor right here guys, just admit it, we're no match

Cool. I am going to wait for you to say something interesting or relevant.

You definitely did not wait

What am I suppose to do with this. You are failing at insulting me or proving me wrong. I think it’s because you don’t seem to have a point.why are you even bothering commenting. Is it because with all the bad posts you have made I am the only one who gives you attention. Do you just need a hug? I may know a bit about stats but you are beyond my ability comprehend.

I guess that my response was, in fact, interesting enough to respond to

Either that, or you don't understand what ignoring someone else is

You can do it! I believe in you

Great point. You are blocked

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Can I ask that you do one big favor for me? Can you take random MLB players from any era maybe like 20 random guys from one position. The more random the better. HOF, joe Carter level, Alex Gordon level and Luis Polonia level.

Could you find their WAR and there wRC+ And find the correlation between those two data sets. As I am sure you know that r will probably be between 1.0 and 0.9. Can you explain why that happens.

I am not smart enough to understand but I think with your statistical mastery you could figure it all out.

Ahh, I see - so you aren't done after all? How unfortunate and yet so predictable.

Here are the stats of Mark McGwire from 1993:

wRC+ 211 - WAR 1.5

Notice how your narrative is instatly shattered? Because wRC+ doesn't for example take into account games played?

Great point, that is why you shouldn’t use a single year but their career numbers. But I thought you would have figured that out.

Ah I see - but wouldn't the numbers of a single season be the same as career numbers if wRC+ was BASED on WAR? Why exactly would it change?

Notice also the seasonal numbers from Trout and Cobb above.

Ty Cobb had a 206 wRC+ and a 10.3 WAR, but the next season had a 11.0 WAR but only a 189 wRC+? Should they not increase in conjunction? Why is that Mike Trout, playing also CF had only a 167 wRC+ while still having a 10.1 WAR? It's almost as if there are some differences in how these statistics are achieved?

Oh boy. 🤔 You really don’t know how to do this do you? For a second I thought you might know what you were talking about and we could’ve had some fun.
Well you wanted me to admit when I was wrong. I was dead wrong thinking you had a clue about statistical analysis.

Dude, never mind. Let go back to when I was sorry about not knowing or whatever I said two post ago. Beliebve what you want dude. You are right. Just don’t apply for a job that requires any level of depth with statistical analysis.

You really are quick to respond.

Here's what I added to the above post.

"How about Mickey Mantle.

In 1955 he had a wRC+ of 179 and a WAR of 9.8
In 1964 he had a wRC+ of 176 and a WAR of 5.5

Curious.

To be honest I'm not even sure what you are requesting because wRC+ is measured as a career avg and WAR is measured cumulatively - so what would be the point in comparing career statistics between the two? Do you want me to manually calculate the cumulative sum of various players total wRC+? Considering I was able to find the above differences with such a quick search do you not think I would be able to find similar differences from this type of a search as well?"

And If I show you two players with the same career WAR but a different cumulative wRC+ for their entire career, then what?

No, it’s all good. Not asking for anything. I think we have pushed our conversation to the limits. We are done here unless there is something else you need from me. Otherwise, you appear to have plateaued. I don’t feel like giving a lesson. Besides you have shown there is little I could teach you.

I wonder why that is...

Chipper Jones, Career WAR 84.6 - career avg for wRC+ 141
Adrian Beltre, Career WAR 84.1 - career avg. for wRC+ 115

That is a much bigger difference than what you stated should be possible.

How strange...

I'm now convinced that you have never actually researched how these stats are collected. The likeliest scenario is that you thought that you could somehow bluff or intimidate your way through this discussion without ever having to justify your position.

You got me. I am so tempted to explain because you are slowly getting there. But it’s not worth it

sometimes when im irritated on a work thing, ill come to this forum for a second, skim half a page of this stuff, instantly feel better about whatever my situation is

some of you guys argue so much it is unreal lol

some run from the fire and some love to see it burn

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Can I ask that you do one big favor for me? Can you take random MLB players from any era maybe like 20 random guys from one position. The more random the better. HOF, joe Carter level, Alex Gordon level and Luis Polonia level.

Could you find their WAR and there wRC+ And find the correlation between those two data sets. As I am sure you know that r will probably be between 1.0 and 0.9. Can you explain why that happens.

I am not smart enough to understand but I think with your statistical mastery you could figure it all out.

Ahh, I see - so you aren't done after all? How unfortunate and yet so predictable.

Here are the stats of Mark McGwire from 1993:

wRC+ 211 - WAR 1.5

Notice how your narrative is instatly shattered? Because wRC+ doesn't for example take into account games played?

Great point, that is why you shouldn’t use a single year but their career numbers. But I thought you would have figured that out.

Ah I see - but wouldn't the numbers of a single season be the same as career numbers if wRC+ was BASED on WAR? Why exactly would it change?

Notice also the seasonal numbers from Trout and Cobb above.

Ty Cobb had a 206 wRC+ and a 10.3 WAR, but the next season had a 11.0 WAR but only a 189 wRC+? Should they not increase in conjunction? Why is that Mike Trout, playing also CF had only a 167 wRC+ while still having a 10.1 WAR? It's almost as if there are some differences in how these statistics are achieved?

Oh boy. 🤔 You really don’t know how to do this do you? For a second I thought you might know what you were talking about and we could’ve had some fun.
Well you wanted me to admit when I was wrong. I was dead wrong thinking you had a clue about statistical analysis.

Dude, never mind. Let go back to when I was sorry about not knowing or whatever I said two post ago. Beliebve what you want dude. You are right. Just don’t apply for a job that requires any level of depth with statistical analysis.

You really are quick to respond.

Here's what I added to the above post.

"How about Mickey Mantle.

In 1955 he had a wRC+ of 179 and a WAR of 9.8
In 1964 he had a wRC+ of 176 and a WAR of 5.5

Curious.

To be honest I'm not even sure what you are requesting because wRC+ is measured as a career avg and WAR is measured cumulatively - so what would be the point in comparing career statistics between the two? Do you want me to manually calculate the cumulative sum of various players total wRC+? Considering I was able to find the above differences with such a quick search do you not think I would be able to find similar differences from this type of a search as well?"

And If I show you two players with the same career WAR but a different cumulative wRC+ for their entire career, then what?

No, it’s all good. Not asking for anything. I think we have pushed our conversation to the limits. We are done here unless there is something else you need from me. Otherwise, you appear to have plateaued. I don’t feel like giving a lesson. Besides you have shown there is little I could teach you.

I wonder why that is...

Chipper Jones, Career WAR 84.6 - career avg for wRC+ 141
Adrian Beltre, Career WAR 84.1 - career avg. for wRC+ 115

That is a much bigger difference than what you stated should be possible.

How strange...

I'm now convinced that you have never actually researched how these stats are collected. The likeliest scenario is that you thought that you could somehow bluff or intimidate your way through this discussion without ever having to justify your position.

You got me. I am so tempted to explain because you are slowly getting there. But it’s not worth it

Nice try.

What an interesting conversation.

You argue that wRC+ is derivative of WAR. I state that this is incorrect and provide evidence for it.

You ask for more evidence regarding the formula. I provide the formula and more evidence why wRC+ is not derivative of WAR. You state that you are done with the conversation.

You then come back and ask me to compare the wRC+ and WAR numbers of various random players that played at the same position.

I provide more evidence that wRC+ is not derivative of WAR by way of seasonal statistics.

You then ask me to compare career averages/the summation of career wRC+ and the career WAR stats.

I provide even more evidence that wRC+ is not derivative of WAR by comparing the career numbers of Chipper Jones and Adrian Beltre.

The funny thing is - if the formula for wRC+ was a derivative of WAR then there's no reason why we couldn't compare seasonal stats. The only reason why you requested career numbers was because seasonal numbers shattered your narrative too easily.

Again, I have never said that wRC+ and WAR do not use some of the same stats within their formulas (like runs above average and weighted runs above average). But what I did say was that wRC+ is not based on WAR - because it is not.

Of course there is some level of correlation between WAR and wRC+. There is also correlation between almost any other positive baseball metric and WAR. You know why? Because WAR is a comprehensive stat that takes into account a multitude of factors including runs above average.

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@JustASeal0 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@skepple15 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Guys! Stop! Unless you’ve taken college statistics it is impossible for you to understand a stat in regards to sports so just stop! It’s impossible.

Sabermetrics is using some complex statistical analysis. Possibly too complex. And for most people not only do they not understand HOW some of them are conceived but the underlying principles that go into it.

For example being that you wanted to comment. Please answer the following

  1. What is the TOTAL formula used to determine WAR.

  2. What statistical procedure are used and why.

  3. What are some principles used to determine which procedures to use.

Most people including yourself can’t answer that

Here is the formula for WAR

https://ibb.co/wQSypf2

I've already shared the formula for wRC+.

Now show me how wRC+ is BASED on WAR (not just use some of the same components).

Your Copy paste skills are next level. Yeah but to truly understand it you need to explain or at least understand the how the component variables are created and the reason why. Do you understand league adjustment. Why are those stats added. Do they have equal bake and how do you know this. If not should there be a coefficient.

Whatever dude, you have no idea clearly. But please talk amongst yourselves. You all seem to have a clue.

Yes, like I said - I'm copy pasting it because it saves me time.

You asked for the full formula so I gave it to you.

Ok I am sure it has nothing to do with you not being able to put it into your own words. Ok...last word is yours. You are just not knowledgeable enough to have a conversation about sabermetrics. This is just silly at this point. Like I said like explaining a lightning to a baboon

I'll say it again because you missed the 2nd half of the comment.

wRC+ uses weighted runs above average and league averages but to say that because it uses those it is therefore based on WAR and the entire summation that makes up WAR is a ridiculous statement.

👍🏾

That's great.

Also, you requesting me to rephrase a mathematical formula is downright ridiculous.

It's like requesting me to rephrase a2+b2=c2...

Nope i am requesting nothing from you. I am done if you are done...

Btw that formula states that there is a specific and constant relationship that exists between the sides of a right triangle.
More importantly, this is based on proofs and theorems that exist objectively in geometry and algebra.

WAR is NOT something that has the necessary underlying proof work or theorems that would make it valid. Trust me when I say that WAR has not gone under the level of scrutiny via proofs that Pythagorean’s theorem has. Wait did you just compare the Pythagorean theorem with sabermetrics. 🤣

Oh wait, I am sorry I went over your head.

Anyway. To answer your question..I request nothing. I have nothing left to add that you could comprehend

5000 IQ Redditor right here guys, just admit it, we're no match

Cool. I am going to wait for you to say something interesting or relevant.

You definitely did not wait

What am I suppose to do with this. You are failing at insulting me or proving me wrong. I think it’s because you don’t seem to have a point.why are you even bothering commenting. Is it because with all the bad posts you have made I am the only one who gives you attention. Do you just need a hug? I may know a bit about stats but you are beyond my ability comprehend.

I guess that my response was, in fact, interesting enough to respond to

Either that, or you don't understand what ignoring someone else is

You can do it! I believe in you

Great point. You are blocked

This was a fun way to not have to pay attention in class

@TheHungryHole said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

sometimes when im irritated on a work thing, ill come to this forum for a second, skim half a page of this stuff, instantly feel better about whatever my situation is

some of you guys argue so much it is unreal lol

some run from the fire and some love to see it burn

I'm proud of this statement and I will find a way to take it as a personal compliment

Oh wow you are still going. I am going to be honest I did not read all of that. It is like listening to a baboon explain lightning or more like a child explaining how a TV works. Anyway, was there a particular response you wanted beyond me saying how you have shown a unparalleled mastery of statistical analysis?

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Oh wow you are still going. I am going to be honest I did not read all of that. It is like listening to a baboon explain lightning or more like a child explaining how a TV works. Anyway, was there a particular response you wanted beyond me saying how you have shown a unparalleled mastery of statistical analysis?

I see, are you running out of insults?

I'm just waiting to see which field you will claim to be an expert in next?

Will we possibly argue about the use of the contra proferentem principle under the CISG in the international sale of goods? Will you claim to have more knowledge about that as well?

Hey @skepple15, your thread has been highjacked

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Oh wow you are still going. I am going to be honest I did not read all of that. It is like listening to a baboon explain lightning or more like a child explaining how a TV works. Anyway, was there a particular response you wanted beyond me saying how you have shown a unparalleled mastery of statistical analysis?

I see, are you running out of insults?

I'm just waiting to see which field you will claim to be an expert in next?

Will we possibly argue about the use of the contra proferentem principle under the CISG in the international sale of goods? Will you claim to have more knowledge about that as well?

So you JUST realized I am bored of insulting you?

I never said I was an expert at anything. I have no idea about the other topic you just brought up. I definitely know I am smarter than you and have a greater knowledge of statistical analysis.

But I also know it’s not fun nor is there any need in proving that more. Think what you want. I am sort of over you.

This thread is just 6 pages of people arguing(yeah, yeah, I participated in said arguing and I feel bad about it) and not understanding that the other guy is just a troll, hell, he might not even know it.

But one last thing, Maverick, if you are reading this and you didn't, in fact, block me because you're too insecure, then I suggest you don't respond to this because if you do it'll show just how much you care about what other people on the internet think about your intelect. Keep your frustration to yourself and have a good rest of the day with all the time you'll save from not arguing and acting like you're better than everyone else on a forum. Trust me, not responding is doing yourself a favor

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Oh wow you are still going. I am going to be honest I did not read all of that. It is like listening to a baboon explain lightning or more like a child explaining how a TV works. Anyway, was there a particular response you wanted beyond me saying how you have shown a unparalleled mastery of statistical analysis?

I see, are you running out of insults?

I'm just waiting to see which field you will claim to be an expert in next?

Will we possibly argue about the use of the contra proferentem principle under the CISG in the international sale of goods? Will you claim to have more knowledge about that as well?

So you JUST realized I am bored of insulting you?

I never said I was an expert at anything. I have no idea about the other topic you just brought up. I definitely know I am smarter than you and have a greater knowledge of statistical analysis.

But I also know it’s not fun nor is there any need in proving that more. Think what you want. I am sort of over you.

Ahh this same point about IQ again.

The funny thing is - the people who feel so insecure about their own intelligence as to actually feel the need to make such statements, are typically farthest from it. But I can tell that clinging to this notion is very important to you so I'm gonna let it slide. The fact that this comment of yours is public for all our fellow forum members to see is quite enough for me.

I will, however, remind you of our new forum rules and what they state about insulting fellow forum members.

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@SefarR said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

@Maverick31762 said in Jimmie Foxx is unjammable:

Oh wow you are still going. I am going to be honest I did not read all of that. It is like listening to a baboon explain lightning or more like a child explaining how a TV works. Anyway, was there a particular response you wanted beyond me saying how you have shown a unparalleled mastery of statistical analysis?

I see, are you running out of insults?

I'm just waiting to see which field you will claim to be an expert in next?

Will we possibly argue about the use of the contra proferentem principle under the CISG in the international sale of goods? Will you claim to have more knowledge about that as well?

So you JUST realized I am bored of insulting you?

I never said I was an expert at anything. I have no idea about the other topic you just brought up. I definitely know I am smarter than you and have a greater knowledge of statistical analysis.

But I also know it’s not fun nor is there any need in proving that more. Think what you want. I am sort of over you.

Ahh this same point about IQ again.

The funny thing is - the people who feel so insecure about their own intelligence as to actually feel the need to make such statements, are typically farthest from it. But I can tell that clinging to this notion is very important to you so I'm gonna let it slide. The fact that this comment of yours is public for all our fellow forum members to see is quite enough for me.

Got me again. I can’t get anything by you.

Log in to reply