Quote:
Originally Posted by tschock
I see at least 2 things that could be problematic with your statistical model for declaring Koufax as the best left handed pitcher of all time. 1 ) You may be using a statistical probability analysis to determine a singularity (ie Koufax being the best). This is hinted at by your constant touting of the success of your other statistical probability models. If that's not the case, then those probability results are irrelevant and don't add any value to your claim for Koufax anyway.
|
You seem to be conflating what others claim I said with what I've actually said. I have never once claimed that Koufax is the GOAT. I just said he's in the conversation. My arguments have been that Spahn shouldn't be in the conversation at all, and that while he was great for his time, I heavily discount Grove's statistics because of the overall skill level of his contemporaries.
The model I described above is not aimed at proving Koufax is the best, or anyone else for that matter. What I described is a tool for measuring the impact that something like a change in mound heights or a widened strike zone has on performance. It can also be used to estimate something like the overall talent level decrease across the league during WW2, and pretty much anything else that you want to understand the impact of.
Then, if you want, you could use the results of that model to build a separate model to more accurately evaluate pitching performances from different eras. It would give you a better metric than WAR.
Quote:
|
2 ) You constantly ignore other intangible items that, while oft times not quantifiable, are still non-zero. This is demonstrated, in part, by claims such as athletes are better today than they were years ago. While true, you continue to ignore the fact that athletes years ago played and trained under different conditions with what was available at the time. You're implying that had those 'lesser athletes' been born and raised in today's environment, they would not have taken advantage of today's methods and still been throwing rocks at a chalk outline on a barn. Maybe try the reverse? Put Koufax back into the 1930s environment and do the analysis and you'll have different variables to consider. It is possible he wouldn't have made it out of the Dodgers or Cardinals 13 or so minor league teams.
|
Yes, humans evolve. Advances in nutrition, kinesiology, sports medicine, and game theory are all part of the evolutionary process. We know more today than we did 100 years ago. We're also 3 inches taller and stronger, on average, today than we were 100 years ago. Should we add a few more inches to Babe Ruth then, and credit him with a few more HRs? Or what about amphetamine usage from before they started testing for it? It was rampant. You can make adjustments for whatever you want to control for. If you want to debate with BobC about how much humans have evolved over the past 100 years, or even whether or not you think it "counts" as evolution to begin with, be my guest. It's just a conversation I'm not interested in having.