Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 7/26/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!djvh From: djvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDJ) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: RE: Carter vs Pena (Benjamin vs Rubin) Message-ID: <24@drutx.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 11:42:56 EDT Article-I.D.: drutx.24 Posted: Thu Sep 26 11:42:56 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 06:04:28 EDT Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 94 > > EVERYBODY knows that lineups are interdependent! Try watching a game > sometime (instead of just reading numbers). You'll see that when a runner > is on base, it affects (among other things): > > 1) the way the pitcher throws. Using the stretch instead of a full > windup definitely hurts most pitchers' performances. Otherwise, > there would be no need for anyone to ever windup. > > 2) the pitch selection; > > 3) the defensive alignment. > > Thus, if the batter ahead of, say Mattingly, gets on base more often, > is a threat to steal, and gets in scoring position more often, he > can (and does) affect whether Mattingly gets a hit or not. > I agree with this. Lineups are interdependent, and I have no idea why David Rubin thinks otherwise. As you know, I agree with David Rubin that OBA and SA are the "best" available stats, but I *DO* realize that they aren't the only thing we should look at. > > Thus, we see that some excellent managers, such as Whitey Herzog, > deliberately put a player like Coleman, who has a lower OBA and > slugging average than McGee, in the spot where he will get the most > at-bats, thus effectively reducing the overall OBA and slugging pct of > his team. Do you really think he is deliberately reducing the run-scoring > ability of his team? Or do you just think that all these baseball > professionals are sadly misguided? The only other alternative is > that TEAM RUN-SCORING ABILITY IS NOT DIRECTLY CORRELATED WITH > TEAM OBA OR SLUGGING, i.e., these stats aren't all you crack them > up to be. There must be other factors, e.g., speed. > True - speed does have something to do with it. I believe that TEAM RUNS *ARE* DIRECTLY CORELATED WITH TEAM (OBA+SA). Having speed in the lineup just helps to get more runs. The interaction of players as you describe above serves to maximize the hitting of the team, thus increasing team (OBA + SA). We seem to be arguing, in a sense, about different things. All I say is that given the stats we have, (OBA +SA) is the best way we can measure a hitter's offensive contribution. I'm sure it is highly dependent on things such as speed, lineup interactions, etc. We don't have stats for things like speed, moving runners over, the effect of Henderson on Mattingly, etc. Until we do, any *Statistical* argument must be made with the best stats available. Read the books David Rubin speaks of, and you should agree that the best available stats are (OBA+SA). But I do agree that other things (that no one has been able to measure yet) are important. I also think that Carter is better than Pena :-) :-) (I just had to throw that in) > To rephrase this point, so that you will have less chance of > misinterpreting it, if Guerrero's slugging avg and OBA are what > are most important to the Dodgers, then he should bat leadoff, > so as to maximize the team's slugging avg and OBA. He doesn't, > and the very idea seems preposterous. Either Lasorda doesn't > understand the game as you do, or your emphasis on OBA and > slugging is wrong. Which is it? > True, if David Rubin's statement of no lineup interaction is true, then Guerrero should bat leadoff. I just want you to know that I do not agree with him on this. The best possible interaction of players will serve to maximize team SA + OBA, which (maybe some day I'll attempt to *Prove* this) in turn will maximize team run production. Perhaps if Guerrero did bat leadoff, his OBA + SA would drop off tremendously. David Rubin should realize this. >> And even if we WERE to consider them, why does Paul believe that Carter >> has his stats inflated by Hernandez, Strawberry, and Foster when NONE >> of those three show any substantial increase in production over last >> year? > > WRONG. Strawberry is having a much better year than last year. Note that > Strawberry bats directly behind Carter, just as Mattingly bats directly > behind Henderson. See below. > As Carter is not exactly a demon on the basepaths, I fail to see why his batting AHEAD of Strawberry would benefit Strawberry. It seems that the opposite could be true; Carter benefits from having a strong hitter behind him in the lineup. >> I suppose Paul believes Carter has a special dispensation: in >> moving from the Expos to the Mets, he gains by being surrounded by >> Keith, Darryl, and George, while those three do NOT gain from Gary's >> presence. The fact is, the production of all four has remained about >> the same over the past two years, an argument AGAINST lineup effects. > From the figures Paul included, I would have to agree that there is no significant increase in production among the 4 Mets players. The only one that seems to be having a better year than he did in 1984 is Strawberry. It could be argued that this is due to his youth and continued development, not to Carter's presence in the lineup.