Author Topic: Bryce: All things considered, I'd Rather be in Philadelphia  (Read 21330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Online imref

  • Posts: 31904
  • Redemption
saw this on twitter:
Since 2012:

Winning percentage in games in which Harper plays: .558
Winning percentage in games without Harper: .580 (207 games)

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3471
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26107902/what-sealed-bryce-harper-record-deal-phillies

I threw up in my mouth a little bit.

It's journalistic malpractice to not include the following context:

Quote
While opt-outs were discussed during the negotiations, Harper, in the end, said he didn't want one if it cost him a single guaranteed dollar.

The other, better articles on this have explained that the Phillies were only willing to give him the record-breaking amount if there was no opt-out.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28784
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Why not just applaud him once and move on? You guys are so weird.
this.  Don't let him in your head.  I mean, I do love the a-hole chant, but that's a hockey thing (see below). I think indifference to a show man is worse than hostile chants. 


(BTW - I was at an NCAA tournament game when the crowd was chanting "a$$hole, a$$hole, midget, sieve" pointing at 4 different MSU players; fantastic moment, only topped by the invention of the blackhole chant on a guy who I later went to law school with).

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
He’s getting $70 million over the next two years including the signing bonus. Before a strike that seems almost a certainty. And then he gets paid through 2032. Seems like a good deal for Harper. And a reasonable AAV for the Phillies so they have room to extend Realmuto and Hoskins. And add starting pitching at the deadline which they need.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
It's journalistic malpractice to not include the following context:

The other, better articles on this have explained that the Phillies were only willing to give him the record-breaking amount if there was no opt-out.
Yea. He gave something to get something. That’s the way contracts work. Shocking.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 28784
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
and now, to banish him to the out-of-town scoreboard.

I could let this run another couple of days in the clubhouse if it looks like folks can't find the thread.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
saw this on twitter:
Since 2012:

Winning percentage in games in which Harper plays: .558
Winning percentage in games without Harper: .580 (207 games)

Small sample size as usual Imref.  :hysterical:

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
We don’t know. Before the Soto explosion, Robles was supposed to be our stud. If he’s half as good as Acuna was last year though, that’s a really good outfield.
Yes.  And 2B and Catcher are improvements. Key is a healthy Zimm.

Offline bluestreak

  • Posts: 10300
He’s getting $70 million over the next two years including the signing bonus. Before a strike that seems almost a certainty. And then he gets paid through 2032. Seems like a good deal for Harper. And a reasonable AAV for the Phillies so they have room to extend Realmuto and Hoskins. And add starting pitching at the deadline which they need.

He’s making 30 million (20 million in bonus) this year, 26 million for years 2-10 and 22 million for years 11-13

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31580
    • http://www.wnff.net
We've all known he wasn't coming back for a while now.  I'd rather focus on the Nats problems and fielding a competitive team.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
He’s making 30 million (20 million in bonus) this year, 26 million for years 2-10 and 22 million for years 11-13
Ok. I guess I misinterpreted the numbers. 

No paczkis for you. I’m going to get some for me today. 😏

Online imref

  • Posts: 31904
  • Redemption
Small sample size as usual Imref.  :hysterical:

207 games is a small sample size?

Online imref

  • Posts: 31904
  • Redemption
He’s getting $70 million over the next two years including the signing bonus. Before a strike that seems almost a certainty. And then he gets paid through 2032. Seems like a good deal for Harper. And a reasonable AAV for the Phillies so they have room to extend Realmuto and Hoskins. And add starting pitching at the deadline which they need.

Yep, this is a good deal for both sides, as much as it pains me to write that.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
207 games is a small sample size?
As compared to over 1100 games he played. It’s basically like comparing stats from a guy who has played one year to someone who has played six.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 3435
As compared to over 1100 games he played. It’s basically like comparing stats from a guy who has played one year to someone who has played six.

Except that in actual statistical terms it's not.  Variability is fairly high for most stats over seasons, which is why six seasons is more valuable.  But you don't actually lose that much statistical validity if you have a sample of 200 games from the same time period as the 1100 - that's the key difference.  One season versus six is, in baseball terms, apples to pears because variability is high between seasons.  Samples from the same population (the same seasons) are apples to apples.
 
The margin of error on a 95% confidence interval (standard) for a sample of 200 is about 7%.  At 1100 it's 3%.   That result isn't significant at a p value <.05 but it's not entirely meaningless either. 

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
Except that in actual statistical terms it's not.  Variability is fairly high for most stats over seasons, which is why six seasons is more valuable.  But you don't actually lose that much statistical validity if you have a sample of 200 games from the same time period as 1100.  The margin of error on a 95% confidence interval (standard) for a sample of 200 is about 7%.  At 1100 it's 3%.   That result isn't significant at a p value <.05 but it's not entirely meaningless either.
So you would have faith that a player who produced stats for one year would have the same odds of doing it again as someone who did it for six years??  Not meaningless as you say.

Anyways I am just teasing imref because VARK is apparently out to lunch. It’s his job.  I’m just the back up.

Online imref

  • Posts: 31904
  • Redemption
Except that in actual statistical terms it's not.  Variability is fairly high for most stats over seasons, which is why six seasons is more valuable.  But you don't actually lose that much statistical validity if you have a sample of 200 games from the same time period as the 1100 - that's the key difference.  One season versus six is, in baseball terms, apples to pears because variability is high between seasons.  Samples from the same population (the same seasons) are apples to apples.
 
The margin of error on a 95% confidence interval (standard) for a sample of 200 is about 7%.  At 1100 it's 3%.   That result isn't significant at a p value <.05 but it's not entirely meaningless either. 

:clap:

Online imref

  • Posts: 31904
  • Redemption
So you would have faith that a player who produced stats for one year would have the same odds of doing it again as someone who did it for six years??  Not meaningless as you say.

Anyways I am just teasing imref because VARK is apparently out to lunch. It’s his job.  I’m just the back up.

I just hope you have a good ST so you don't have to go to Fresno. :)

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 3435
So you would have faith that a player who produced stats for one year would have the same odds of doing it again as someone who did it for six years??  Not meaningless as you say.


No.  That's not what I mean.  What I mean is that there is actually an ocean of difference between projections drawn off a 200-game (or, for ease of baseball use, 162-game) sample coming from across the seven years than there is of using one complete season.

Put otherwise:  If you want to know how good a player actually is, would you rather know his stats in (1) one complete season out of seven or (2) 162 games chosen entirely at random out of those seven seasons?   (Note that this is not an opinion question: there's a right answer and a wrong one.)

Offline UMDNats

  • Posts: 17013
Anecdotally I always got the impression that when our offense struggled, there was a "Harper can bail us out" mentality, because he often did. When he was hurt, guys kinda honed in and did the little things to manufacture runs and the pitchers knew a big bat was out of the lineup so mistakes hurt more. I'm just mindfacting.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
I just hope you have a good ST so you don't have to go to Fresno. :)
I hear Fresno is beautiful in the spring.

Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
No.  That's not what I mean.  What I mean is that there is actually an ocean of difference between projections drawn off a 200-game (or, for ease of baseball use, 162-game) sample coming from across the seven years than there is of using one complete season.

Put otherwise:  If you want to know how good a player actually is, would you rather know his stats in (1) one complete season out of seven or (2) 162 games chosen entirely at random out of those seven seasons?   (Note that this is not an opinion question: there's a right answer and a wrong one.)
Obviously random but the ones he didn’t play weren’t random. And they weren’t spread out equally over the seven years.

There wasn’t a huge difference in the winning percentages. Not to mention countless other variables that were not controlled.

This conversation reminds of why I retired.

Offline Senatorswin

  • Posts: 385
Does this sound like one of the best players in the game after 7 seasons:

Average - .270, .274, .273, .330, .243, .319, .249

Home runs - 22, 20, 13, 42, 24, 29, 34

RBI - 59, 58, 32, 99, 86, 87, 100


Online Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 16989
Does this sound like one of the best players in the game after 7 seasons:

Average - .270, .274, .273, .330, .243, .319, .249

Home runs - 22, 20, 13, 42, 24, 29, 34

RBI - 59, 58, 32, 99, 86, 87, 100
You forgot the hair.