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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Poll Results and other schtuff Message-ID: <743@fisher.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Aug-85 10:54:38 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.743 Posted: Sat Aug 10 10:54:38 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 02:45:47 EDT References: <321@ltuxa.UUCP> Organization: Princeton University.Mathematics Lines: 50 > In regards to the David Rubin mega-comments: > > One thing I don't see (in Pena-Carter Arguments 1985) is that to be > a legitimate statistic, it cannot reflect ANY teammate interaction. All statistics reflect, to some extent, teammate action. Some, however (such as R's and RBI's) are positively DOMINATED by it. The best we can do is to rid ourselves of statistics which are directly influenced by teammate actions; we cannot rid ourselves of indirect infuences. So I just did the best we could... > I don't buy that. Mr. Rubin states that for example, RBI's, Runs, > and Batting average are somewhat meaningless but on base percentage > and slugging percentage aren't. Runs and rbi's are almost meaningless (that I said) in judging individual performance; batting average I merely regard as poorly conceived. It was established as a hitting statistic when power was unimportant and walks exceedingly rare, i.e. under circumstances that no longer hold. >.............................Well, teammates affect walks (e.g. > Coleman gets on base in front of you, or first base is open, etc.) > I suppose one could say, and let's face it , it is a team sport. So > to only look at stats that are "individual" seems a bit simplistic. Intentional walks should be subtracted off, but there are not so frequent as to really screw up OBA. OBA isn't perfect, just superior. Indirect effects are often unproven (I don't think, for example, that McGee is walking much more often than he did without Coleman in front of him) and, when actually established, are far less significant than direct effects in baseball. Some error is inevitable (baseball, like life, is not deterministic); however, OBA and SA both far outperform any of the other standard stats in predicting run production (should I post a summary on Pete Palmer's study of the issue?), and together, they do VERY well, indeed. > I personally would rather have a Carter than a Pena, but even with > all the stats produced, I don't think anyone could give a DEFINITIVE > answer to who is better. Au contraire -- the evidence of an offensive difference is overwhelming. If you are not persuaded that this is so, there is probably nothing that could persuade you. We'd be left without a decent way to carry on an argument beyond the level of SEZ WHO; now what fun would that be? David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david