Team Outs Efficiency Percentage

[gyb13]

you haven't answered redseat's point:

yes, TOEP may be indicative of whether a team is good or bad, in absolute terms. but it gets trickier in the gray areas - his hypothetical example clearly shows this flaw.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by gyb13

you haven't answered redseat's point:

yes, TOEP may be indicative of whether a team is good or bad, in absolute terms. but it gets trickier in the gray areas -

In the lists of actual TOEPs run here, and in the feature, give me an actual example of this claim.

[gyb13]

sorry, but i don't have time right now to go line by line through 2199 seasons

the point is a theoretical one, not a practical one, which drives at the nature of TOEP. namely, that the result says contradicting things about the value of hits and walks. and that problem won't change whether four teams actually finished with those numbers RS posted above or not.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by Skip

Nice job of cherry picking your examples. Are you saying there are no examples where TOEP was equally wrong?

This is interesting - -

There are 123 team seasons where PW% was under .500 (meaning a bad team) yet the TOEP was positive (meaning a good team). Conflict!

In 45.5% of those 123 team seasons, the team's actual W% was less than the PW%.

In 54.5% of those 123 team seasons, the team's actual W% was greater than the PW%.

In fact, in 29% of those 123 team seasons, the team had a winning percentage OVER .500.

What does that indicate?

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by gyb13

sorry, but i don't have time right now to go line by line through 2199 seasons

Do it from the list of 2003 TOEPs in the feature - it's only 30 deep.

Originally Posted by gyb13

the point is a theoretical one, not a practical one, which drives at the nature of TOEP. namely, that the result says contradicting things about the value of hits and walks. and that problem won't change whether four teams actually finished with those numbers RS posted above or not.

With all due respect on the item in red - it's not true.
See: http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/...8&postcount=27

Take off the actual team names and call them Team A,B,C,D if you want - but, the proof is there - for TOEP a walk is as good as a hit.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

This is interesting - -

There are 123 team seasons where PW% was under .500 (meaning a bad team) yet the TOEP was positive (meaning a good team). Conflict!

In 45.5% of those 123 team seasons, the team's actual W% was less than the PW%. In 54.5% of those 123 team seasons, the team's actual W% was greater than the PW%. In fact, in 29% of those 123 team seasons, the team had a winning percentage OVER .500.

More - -

There are 541 team seasons where PW% was greater than or equal to .500 (meaning a good team) yet the TOEP was negative (meaning a bad team).

In 53.6% of those 541 team seasons, the team's actual W% was less than the PW%.

In 0.2% of those 541 team seasons, the team's actual W% was equal to the PW%.

In 46.2% of those 541 team seasons, the team's actual W% was greater than the PW%.

In fact, in 8.1% of those 541 team seasons, the team had a winning percentage under .500.

What does that indicate?

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by gyb13

yes, TOEP may be indicative of whether a team is good or bad, in absolute terms. but it gets trickier in the gray areas

I ran TOEP for all team seasons from 1973 to 2003. That's 832 seasons. 416 would be the mid-point of that list. Let's look at the teams that ranked 414 to 418 on the list:

Team	YEAR	TOEP	        
Rangers	1989	0.005964215	
Angels	1989	0.004662005	
Expos	1973	0.004316547	
Cubs	2003	0.004065041	
Orioles	1986	0.003552398

This is your gray area, no?

I would contend that this ranking is as good as any other - if not best. Let's see what others say: http://www.netshrine.com/vbulletin2/...ad.php?t=12936

[gyb13]

another problem with TOEP - it's not era-adjusted. is the comparison across years that meaningful?

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by gyb13

another problem with TOEP - it's not era-adjusted. is the comparison across years that meaningful?

I contend that it's era neutral - since you're comparing hitting and hitting defense for a team in the same year. Check the results that I have shared here - do you only see teams from great hitting eras at the top of this list? That's the test.

[Wolf Hopper]

More supportive TOEP facts - -
From 1973-2003, there were 832 team seasons.
In 49.2% of those 832 a team season had a negative TOEP (meaning a bad season).

Of those 409 negative TOEPs:
97.7% of the teams had less than 84 wins.
96.8% of the teams had less than 86 wins.
86.1% of the teams played .500 ball or less.

[RedSeat]

I'm still not sure what you're getting from TOEP that you don't get from looking at a team's W-L record. You keep offering examples that show correlations between TOEP and W-L record. If I want to know how a team actually did, I'll just look at their record. Deeper analysis becomes interesting or useful when you look at the discrepancies. More to the point, when you can fully explain the discrepancies.

Here's an example. The 2002 Red Sox actual win total was considerably lower than their pythagorrean prediction. Why was that? They had an awful record in one run games. If you believe, as many do, that a team's record in one-run games is largely dependent on luck, then one could expect that the season was an anomaly, and a team with those same players would expect to do better in subsequent years.

A similar analysis is impossible with TOEP. If you look at a team who's record was poor, in spite a high TOEP, how do you explain it? You can't. As my example showed, some teams will have higher TOEP's with disproportionately high walk totals. Other teams will have higher TOEP's with disproportionatley low walk totals. Because discrepancies cannot be explained (or at east explained consistently), TOEP has no value to me.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by RedSeat

I'm still not sure what you're getting from TOEP that you don't get from looking at a team's W-L record.

For staters, TOEP tells us that the 2002 Red Sox were better team than the 1971 Orioles - even 'tho the O's had 8 more wins and were in the WS - - and the Red Sox finished 10.5 games out of 1st and did not make the postseason.

This is where TOEP tells you more than just looking at the W-L record.

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by RedSeat

If you believe, as many do, that a team's record in one-run games is largely dependent on luck

Luck is the residue of design - in that, I believe. If a team was designed to score more runs, or allow less, then they would not be involved in as many one run games and would have better "luck."

[Wolf Hopper]

Originally Posted by RedSeat

some teams will have higher TOEP's with disproportionately high walk totals. Other teams will have higher TOEP's with disproportionatley low walk totals. Because discrepancies cannot be explained (or at east explained consistently), TOEP has no value to me.

It's mathematically impossible to have the conditions you state - if everything else is equal.

If two teams allowed the same amount of hits and walks, and earned the same number of hits - the team with the lower walk total could not have a higher TOEP.

Team A allows 100 hits and 30 BB. The have 100 hits and earned 50 BB.
Team B allows 70 hits and 60 BB. They have 100 hits and earned 30 BB.

Team A has a TOEP of .400 - - very good.
Team B has a TOEP of zero - - just average.

RedSeat - again, please, look at all the lists generated by TOEP here and in the SOTS - please show me an example where the TOEP rankings prove without a doubt that TOEP fails.

That's real data - from the field - what better evidence is there?

[RedSeat]

Originally Posted by Wolf Hopper

For staters, TOEP tells us that the 2002 Red Sox were better team than the 1971 Orioles - even 'tho the O's had 8 more wins and were in the WS - - and the Red Sox finished 10.5 games out of 1st and did not make the postseason.

This is where TOEP tells you more than just looking at the W-L record.

No, it tells me that they had a higher TOEP. If you study the numbers, you'll come up with a reason for them having a higher TOEP. And you say, "Aha, the 2002 Red Sox were better than the 1971 Orioles because of X."

And if you compare two other teams, you can find that one was better than the other for the opposite of X.