Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Statistics and Carter vs. Pena Message-ID: <749@fisher.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 13:34:08 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.749 Posted: Mon Aug 19 13:34:08 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 22:14:07 EDT References: <3655@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Princeton University.Mathematics Lines: 87 A few comments on Dan Schneider's comments on my comments on Paul Bejamin's comments (or: "Who's On First" in a net version!). > (One of the things I've longed imagined is to have all baseball statistics > on-line. I mean ALL, meaning basically a score sheet of each game. > Wouldn't it be nice then if they were in a huge database, ready to be > compiled into new statistics with a few simple instructions. The > Sabrematicians would certainly get a run for their money. Bill James > uses a PC, but seems to regard it a little as the enemy and a little > as a simpleton. I imagine he (and others) probably, with the aid > of whatever staff they have, tabulate by going through the score sheets > by hand, etc.) Were that it so. I think James is working in that direction with his "Project Scoresheet", wherein volunteers in each city compile EVERYTHING (hope they have cable TV!) on their team and are sending it to James in Missouri. > >..... It [BA] was established as a hitting statistic when power was > >unimportant and walks exceedingly rare, i.e. under circumstances that > >no longer hold. > ... [I am skeptical] of [BA's] history as presented here... BA has been around longer than professional baseball. Back in the late nineteenth century, the HR leader for the league usually had about four-six homers, and walks were given on seven, eight, or even nine balls, and were extremely rare (especially as pitchers were only forty-five or fifty feet from home plate). It was during this era that BA established itself as THE official hitting statisitic, and the league leader in BA was spoken of as the "batting leader". > BA and OBA measure different aspects of the game. Inherently they are > correlated, but neither can do justice in explaining a player's > offensive contribution. The problem with OBA is that a walk is a > single is a catcher's interference. But obviously a single is BETTER > than a walk. OBA isn't perfect, nor superior. As statistics go, they > both do their (different) jobs. What OB measures is more closely associated with runs produced that what BA measures. You are correct in saying they merely do different jobs; however, they are used for the same job, evaluating offensive performance (i.e. run production), a job they were not specifically constructed for. OB outperforms BA in that incidental job. In short, to use either BA or OB to summarize a player's offensive contribution is to place more weight upon these stats than they ought to bear. However, OB stands up better to the abuse than BA; this does not mean I advocate abuse! OB and SA, when taken together, outshine any other combination of official stats. > .... But Pena has quite a few years on Carter, giving him the edge > in current value in my book. It depends on the team, but in general I'll > take the younger Pena. A solid reason to prefer Pena! However, I think that the discussion was on who is the BETTER catcher, which I interpreted as a question regarding their seasonal performance. To decide who is more VALUABLE (as distinct from who is better), we would have to find some way to account for Pena's likely greater longevity. Pena is 28, Carter 31. Carter will probably catch until, say, 34; Pena, while having a longer way to go, appears durable (defensively), and so we'll assume the same. That's 3 more for Carter, 6 for Pena. Carter is so productive offensively, though, that he will continue to play everyday even after he stops catching (I expect him to be Foster's successor in left field); Pena may have a tough time establishing himself as an outfielder or first baseman after he's through as a catcher. Even in his best year (1984), Pena was less productive at the plate than most NL outfielders, although this would not preclude him from playing with a weaker team. Thus, for the next three (or so) years, both Carter and Pena will remain top catchers; for the three years after that, Carter will be a premier outfielder and Pena an ace catcher; for the three years after that, Pena may be a benchman for a good team or a starting outfielder/firstbaseman for a weaker one. Carter's value will drop off more rapidly than Pena's in the future, as Carter approaches his likely retirement, but the above description suggests to me that Carter might still have more current value. He will, in my opinion, be more valuable in the first period, and obviously less valuable in the third; the question hinges on whether and to what extent it is better to have an excellent hitting outfielder with a great arm and limited range or a superb defensive catcher with a good bat albeit with limited power. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david