A fan of the Yankees, Red Sox, and large sample sizes.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the correct theoretical concepts behind win shares. Here's the state of the union:
Claim points for hitting win shares are runs created above replacement. I call them extra runs created. ExtraRC = (RC/out - .5*lgRC/out) * outs.
Claim points for hitting loss shares are runs created below ideal. I call them lacking runs created. LackRC = (1.5*lgRC/out - RC/out) * outs.
Claim points for hitting game shares are expected runs produced. That is, the number of runs expected to be produced given a player's outs and a league-average RC/out rate. I call them total runs created. TotRC = lgRC/out * outs.
Note that extraRC + lackRC = totRC. This is good. This means that win shares + loss shares = game shares.
What's the best metric to use to value players? It should reward players for extraRC and punish them for lackRC. So what better calculation than simply win shares - loss shares, or extraRC - lackRC. I call these net runs created. NETruns = (RC/out - lgRC/out) * outs * 2. That 2 pops into the equation when you run through the algebra of subtracting lackRC from extraRC. It doesn't make a difference when comparing players, just changes the scale a little bit. The issue of leaving the 2 in the equation versus taking it out is comparable to a team being 10 games over .500, but only being 5 games ahead of a .500 team. Both are correct; they just present the information in slightly different ways.
So, we've got our metric of NETShares. It rewards players for quantity and quality compared to average. Let's see some 2003 numbers through June 26:
Top 10 Overall:
Bottom 10 Overall:
Top 10 Firstbasemen
Top 10 Secondbasemen
(continued in next post... stupid blogger errors)
Comments: Post a Comment