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