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!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: lineup dependency (again!)
Message-ID: <458@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 12:55:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: philabs.458
Posted: Fri Sep 27 12:55:07 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 23:41:44 EDT
References: <455@philabs.UUCP> <696@mmintl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 105

> >How about a stat such as "how many runs you
> >contribute to", measured by runs you score, drive in, or help advance
> >the runners, or even better, how much better you are at that than
> >others batting in similar positions? These stats are virtually impossible
> >to compute from box scores, because so much information is lost, such as
> >if anyone was in scoring position when a player made an out, or whether
> >an out advanced a runner. In this sense, I can agree with you that
> >OBA and slugging may be the best available, but I'm saying that this
> >means that the available stats are not very good (we need some new
> >categories).
> 
> Well yes, that's what I said.  "The two best readily available statistics."
> In particular, if I know a player's on base and slugging averages, I don't
> much care what his batting average is.  In fact, it is better if the batting
> average is lower, with the same on base and slugging averages.

Well, I think that is lineup dependent! Specifically, a cleanup hitter should
get a lot of hits - his OBA is not terribly important. He's supposed to
be driving in runs. A perfect example of this is Jason Thompson. His OBA
is among the best in the league, but his BA is low. I would much rather
see a higher BA, even at the cost of a lower OBA. He just doesn't drive
in runners. So who cares if we walks that much (he was leading the NL the
last time I saw the numbers) - that just passes the RBI duty along to #5,
and the Pirates haven't had a good #5 in a long time (George Hendrick??).
But I basically agree with you.

> Yes, we do need better stats.  I have my doubts about your proposal; it is
> highly lineup dependent.  A batter will participate in more runs on a good
> offensive team than on a poor one -- this is the main problem with RBIs.
> (That assessment sounds harsher than I really mean it to be.  This would
> be a useful statistic -- certainly better than "runs produced" or "game
> winning RBI.  (I don't really understand why the statistic isn't "go ahead
> RBI" instead -- the batter putting his team ahead cannot be affected by
> whether they will stay ahead.)  But if I could only get one statistic about
> a player, I would rather know the sum of his on base and slugging, than
> the number of runs (total, per game, or per at bat, your choice) that he
> contributed to.)

Specifically, what I had mentioned in previous postings, but had not repeated,
(the posting was long enough!) was the percentage of a team's runs that a
player figures in. I think this might be a very meaningful stat, particularly
where MVP awards are being discussed. This would parallel the hockey stat,
in which we can see, for instance, someone like Gretzky participating in
a very high percentage of his team's goals.
> 
> If you can get a copy, do look the Elias book (_The_1985_Elias_Baseball_
> Analyst_).  It has batting and pitching statistics broken down by whether
> the bases are empty, leading off an inning, with runners on base, with
> runners in scoring position, and with runners in scoring position with
> two out.  It also has statistics for batting in late inning pressure
> situations (defined as the seventh inning or later, with the player's
> team tied, behind by not more than three runs, or behind by four runs
> with the bases loaded), broken down similarily.  It also has home vs
> away, grass vs turf, and day vs night breakdowns.

Thanks for the suggestion.

> Some other statistics I would like to see: how often does a runner take
> an extra base on hit?  And how often is he out trying to do so?  Another
> interesting statistic would be bases advanced out of the number possible
> (a grand slam is ten out of ten; a bases empty single is one out of four).
> The ratio of bases advanced to outs made would also be interesting.
> None of these statistics is perfect, of course.

No, no stat is. But I like the way you think. The idea of bases advanced
seems nice to me. I am particularly thinking about people who get singles
with the bases loaded instead of solo HRs. I have always felt that they
got the short end of the stick statistically, particularly from people like
David Rubin, who ignore such things as R and RBI. The single with the
bases loaded contributes, say, 5 bases, and the solo HR contributes 4.
It doesn't seem quite fair to give the HR 4 bases and the single 1 (in
slugging avg), when the TIMING of the hit is all important. By the way,
when you read "solo HR" above, read "Gary Carter". Almost all of his HR's
are solo - thus his low RBI total (he doesn't get many RBI singles, either.)
In his recent HR binge, he hit 9 HR, with 15 RBI. Actually, he had 3 HR,
6 RBI in one game, and 6 HR, 9 RBI during the rest of the streak. If you
look around the league, you will find other players who go on RBI binges,
and do it without that many HRs. But they don't get the slugging average
boost that HRs give - Carter picked up about 45 points on his season average
in 2 games! (5 HRs)

> >>I am unconvinced by the Mattingly data.  There is just not enough there
> >>to be statistically significant.
> >
> >Of course. But I didn't say that this proved conclusively that all
> >players' stats are highly order-dependent. I just showed the existence
> >of stats that support the belief in lineup dependency. Again, just
> >because these stats are not often kept is not my fault.
> 
> Let me put that a bit differently.  While Mattingly undoubtably hits
> better batting after Henderson (who has a very good on base percentage
> and fantastic speed), it is unlikely that the effect is anywhere near
> as large as in those sample statistics.  And whoever hits after Henderson
> can expect an improvement.

I stated in that posting that the magnitude of the difference was undoubtedly
exceptional. I agree with you, that whoever hits after Henderson (Coleman,
etc.) can expect an improvement.

> This is one reason the on base and slugging averages make such a good pair.
> When a player is pitched to cautiously, the on base average goes up and
> the slugging average goes down.  In the reverse case, the opposite happens.

It's true that they complement each other well. But they are both terribly
inadequate to begin with, so who cares?