09-30-2009, 05:37 PM
The concept is great, and by evaluating every play, and can certainly be done. I just question the methodology.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that mean if he Rowen missed a ball that they believe every other CFer in baseball would catch, he gets a -29? I doubt it is that extreme (because player ratings would very more from year to year), but I think the bigger the scale is, the less accurate the result.
I always thought, that if a player was -24, it meant that he allowed 24 more hits than the average player. Now I don't know what to believe.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->A player gets credit (a "plus" number) if he makes a play that at least one other player at his position missed during the season, and he loses credit (a "minus" number) if he misses a play that at least one player made. The size of the credit is directly related to how often players make the play.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does that mean if he Rowen missed a ball that they believe every other CFer in baseball would catch, he gets a -29? I doubt it is that extreme (because player ratings would very more from year to year), but I think the bigger the scale is, the less accurate the result.
I always thought, that if a player was -24, it meant that he allowed 24 more hits than the average player. Now I don't know what to believe.
I like you guys a lot.