Quote:
Originally Posted by OutS|der
Whatever then. DonÂ’t accept other views. Stick to your narrow view from limited testing.
IÂ’m done trying to offer help or suggestions here.
You want to ignore the affect of league totals then go ahead. Just shows how meaningless your testing is so enjoy arguing with yourself
|
I don't see the need for this kind of response. Furious said he'd run the numbers.
I think the reason the league totals aren't super useful here is that we're seeing these totals in a modern league already and the concern is at the low end of the scale, so lowering the league totals just shrinks/increases the scale we're talking about when the concern is the low end in modern leagues.
Doubling the scale would increase the number for both types of players and obviously increase the gap, but it would also create an unrealistic situation and I'm not clear how it would show these players with minimal rating aren't turning too many double plays. I think it's clear that changing the league totals would change the spread.
If you think a player with a minimal double play rating should be able to turn 100 DPs a season in modern baseball, and it's working as intended, that's totally fine and it's a valid perspective.
Edit: In your example you use POW between today and 1984. You mention the spread would be smaller (and I agree), but do you foresee the players with minimal HR hitting more than 1 or 2? Or, do you foresee a setting where players with minimal ratings for POW hit at least close to an "average" number of HR?
I'm asking seriously because I feel like that's how the DP rating is different here. Players performing competently despite not really having the skill. Even if we change the rating to 10x the modern values for HR, I'd expect to see players with minimal ratings hit very, very few home runs compared to other players and, even if you didn't know their ratings, it would be clear they are low.