Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: NL catchers, statistics, baseball philosophy
Message-ID: <408@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 17:09:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.408
Posted: Fri Aug  9 17:09:34 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 03:19:07 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 71

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR STATISTICS ***
> With this article I begin my case for Gary Carter being a greater
> asset than Tony Pena.  Due to the extreme length (and heavy reading)
> of my essay, I've broken it down into three parts.  Part I, this
> article you are now reading, begins with a bibliography and a point by
> point answer to Paul Benjamin's last article.  As it has been some
> time since that article appeared, I have reproduced it fully to
> refresh the memories of those of you who can't remember its details,
> and have outlined the nature of the response that will appear in Parts
> II (Offense) and III (Defense) to his particular points.  Part II is
> already written, and will be posted one day after this introduction.
> Part III is nearly complete, and should be posted by the end of the
> week.

                          etc.

                          etc.

It's really a shame that you are putting so much time into this, when
it means nothing to me. The whole difference between us is one of
underlying philosophy. You are a statistician, and love all sorts of
wonderfully contorted statistics. I couldn't care less about on base
percentage, slugging average, homeruns per at bat, etc. What I like to 
see is a winning team, which is constructed from winning team players.

Now, first of all, if you are going to go back more than a year or so,
I will agree totally with you that Carter was better than Pena. After
all, for most of Carter's career, Pena was in the minors. The question
was, which was the better pick to start THIS year's all-star game. I
couldn't care less about 1981 or 1982 or 1983.

But most importantly of all, we completely disagree on how to measure the
players, so any argument from your statistical point of view is irrelevant
to me, just as my argument will be meaningless to you.
When constructing your all-star team, I gladly give you your type
of player: Parker, Blyleven, etc. These statistical marvels are losers.
They are not team players. They are concerned with their own numbers,
and their careers reflect those numbers. I have always felt, for example,
that Phil Garner was more important to a team than Bill Madlock. You,
I think, would say, "But look at the BA, the on base pct, etc." Great!
You can put together a team which will lead the league in all sorts of
statistical categories, and I will put together a team to win the World
Series. For an example of such a team, look at the Mets. (Don't say this
is due to Carter. They were the same last year - nearly won the division
with terrible stats - they are often outhit when winning, and were outscored
over the course of the season.)

We could go on indefinitely with statistical arguments ("Why do you
subtract HR's? "Because otherwise the run is counted twice." "Why do
you center so much on R and RBI?" "Because I feel runs are all that
ultimately count on offense; the point of baseball is not to get men 
on base." etc. etc.) But this would be pointless (and boring). There is
no way that you are going to convince me that the Gold Glove was awarded
arbitrarily, or that your baseball knowledge is superior to their
collective knowledge. Nor will you convince me that the statistics you
cite are not lineup-dependent (check Madlock's stats batting third vs.
batting sixth, or before and after Stargell's retirement.) The bottom
line is that ALL statistics are lineup-dependent, e.g., on-base percentage
increases when batting in front of a good player. After all, no player
plays baseball all by himself. This is a team game.

Furthermore, you say that the Pirate lineup was not that much worse than 
the Montreal lineup in 83 and 84 because the two teams finished about 
the same. But OF COURSE, the Pirates did this due to pitching, and the Expos 
did this due to hitting! Nice feat of legerdemain yourself. The Pirate 
lineup sucked last year and this year, as anyone can see, whereas the 
Expo lineup (offense!) was not bad at all.

So let us put this argument to rest. You will post your beloved statistics
and I will ignore them, because I am not, at heart, a statistics fan - 
I am a baseball fan.