Originally Posted by Dan
Not sure if this adds to your comment, or explains it, or just adds to the confusion, but here goes...
I bowl. A lot. Average over 220, which even in this day and age is pretty elite. I definitely have more "down" days than up days. The thing is, my baseline is so high that my down days aren't really all that down (say I have a 620 series which is 40 pins under my overall average) but when I do well, I do really well (last night I had 744 series, which is 84 pins over my average). So what I am is remarkably consistent on the lower end of my scoring, and when I do deviate greatly from my norm, it's in the positive range.
I see Votto as the same way. He does his 2-strike choke-up because he's striving to maintain his high baseline performance. Bruce doesn't change his approach in order to maintain a baseline. Therefore Votto is (or appears to be?) less volatile than Bruce is.
I guess it depends on how you want to measure consistency. Let say you have a .400 wOBA player, but he's super streaky.. Shouldn't his stretch of "hot" periods increase his volatility? If he has a bigger spread on his performance (even if his "bad' period are above average), doesn't that make him more volatile.
I guess high volatility isn't necessarily a bad thing, IMO.
Anyhow, I have problems with this formula penalizing the lower performing players. IMO, it makes it almost useless to compare players.
If the mean performance of a player is high, then naturally when he has a 0-4 day it should mean more volality than a guy that stinks.
Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2012 AND 2013!
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!