Comments on: Assessing Matsui’s and a DH’s values

By: The economics of Hideki Matsui | River Avenue Blues

The economics of Hideki Matsui | River Avenue Blues — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:51:19 +0000

[...] on, a report out of Japan alleged that the Yanks stood to lose $15 million in revenue if Matsui left the Bronx. Many though questioned those numbers. The revenue from Japan [...]

By: Yanks order of operations starts with Pettitte | River Avenue Blues

Yanks order of operations starts with Pettitte | River Avenue Blues — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:01:41 +0000

[...] the Yanks sign a versatile Mark DeRosa-type who can also hit, their offensive production, as I explored last month, will suffer. Still the winter is young, and there are still many, many moves to make. Posted [...]

By: Olney: Matsui’s marketability not a factor | River Avenue Blues

Olney: Matsui’s marketability not a factor | River Avenue Blues — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:39:35 +0000

[...] Ben noted, the Yankees could lose an estimated $15 million if Matsui signs elsewhere. I can’t verify the accuracy of that number, so let’s use it [...]

By: pon

pon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:28:50 +0000

Thanks. i understand it.
And your explanation tells that MLVr is not reliable because of the big difference between its numbers and realty. (as you refered to Keith Woolner.)
it might come from disregard for clutchness or situational hitting — in another word, RBI.
i guess you’d better not use MLVr.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:57:01 +0000

No, I don’t. The 194 figure is what the team’s individual average MLVr would suggest they score above league average. The 74 is what the team’s individual average MLVr without Matsui would suggest they score above league average. The 134 is what they scored above AL league average, and the 168 is what they scored above AL average.

Keith Woolner, in the piece linked in the post, explains why MLVr tends to overexaggerate offense at the ends of the runs scored spectrum.

Additionally, MLVr calculates the runs a team should score based upon its component parts, i.e. singles, doubles, etc. The Yanks had an OPS that was more than .030 lower with RISP than their overall number. So we could easily imagine the Yanks scoring 194 runs above average.

That’s just the long-winded way of saying that I’m not wrong. You’re just misunderstanding the numbers I used or I didn’t do a good enough job explaining them originally. Needless to say, the 194 number is for the Yanks as a team and not nine Matsuis.

By: Gorillaz

Gorillaz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:38:48 +0000

And that just shows your ignorance..

By: Reacher

Reacher — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:47:49 +0000

The probable revenue loss and the concommitant negative consequences in the Japanese market will result in Hideki wearing pinstripes, at least for another year.

By: pon

pon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:34:17 +0000

20 runs? Where does it come from?

194 = 9 Matsui(s).
174 = One of mediocre players replaces Matsui.
134 = Reality with Matsui.

This means that one of mediocre players is far better than Matsui because he can produce 40 more runs. (40 = 174-134)

Obviously this is a wrong calculation.
Ben, you add three .200 hitters and regard them as a .600 hitter.

By: The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

The Honorable Congressman Mondesi — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:50:41 +0000

“So basically what you’re saying is that it only works for you and everybody else…but it’s entirely not allowed to be strange for me…instead it will continue to be used against me instead?”

No. I’m saying it’s funny that you usually complain about people taking your words seriously (before eventually conceding that your words were off but the interpretation was accurate), but this time you’re complaining that your words are clear and the interpretation is off.

And look… I’m not about to get into this ‘stuff is held against Rose’ discussion for the googleplexillionth time… But yeah, I mean, stuff you said in the past can be referenced, just like it can be referenced for anyone else. I’m not picking on you by referring to that stuff, I’m treating you the same way I’d treat anyone else.

“Either way, me disregarding a stat I didn’t believe to be accurate enough (regardless of whether or not I knew the actual definition) doesn’t make me “willfully ignorant.””

Sure, I can roll with that, it doesn’t. The statement you made above was willfully ignorant, though, for the reasons stated above (numerous times).

“The fact that I’ve explained WHY I don’t side with it…means that there’s a reason.”

If you’re saying that you later had to explain why you don’t like the metric, then you’re admitting that your initial statement that you don’t buy it, regardless of the intent of the metric, was willfully ignorant.

By: Rose

Rose — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:15:12 +0000

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%.....ranges.jpg