Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: lineup dependency (again!) Message-ID: <696@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 13:35:31 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.696 Posted: Thu Sep 26 13:35:31 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 09:04:36 EDT References: <455@philabs.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Distribution: na Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 120 Summary: I did say "readily available" In article <455@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes: >>You are mixing apples and oranges here. Of course lineup order in this >>sense matters: a walk followed by a home run is two runs, while a home >>run followed by a walk is one run. I thought (up to this point) that >>the discussion was about whether players hit better depending on where >>they bat in the order. > >Not just where in the order, but who is batting ahead of them and >behind them. And as you point out later in this posting, batters >do bat better when men are on base, so I'm not really mixing apples >and oranges at all - lineup order can affect personal stats. Yes, lineup order can affect personal stats -- but the paragraph above is NOT an argument to that effect. >>I don't *think* anyone ever claimed that OBA and >>slugging pct give a complete description of a team's offensive abilities; >>just that they are the two best readily available statistics. Which they >>are. > >You contradict yourself! You state that "of course lineup order matters >in this sense", and then state that personal stats such as OBA and >slugging are the best. 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. 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.) 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. 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. >>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. >Again, one case I cite is the Pirates of the late 70's. Nobody wanted >to pitch to Stargell with men on base, so, as you say, people in front >of him were rarely walked. But this means that they saw more fastballs, >and less nibbling around the corner of the plate. That gave good >fastball hitters, like Madlock, more fat pitches. Note that the >difference need be quite small to still produce a good effect. Over, >say 500 atbats, say about 3000 pitches a season, a hitter in such a >nice spot might get only 30 more fat pitches to hit (1%). This could >lead to several HRs, doubles, more RBI, more R, and higher OBA and >slugging. The player will have more strikes thrown at him (which tends to mean more fastballs). Since he is getting more good pitches, he is likely to hit for better average and power. But he can be expected to walk *less*, and thus have a lower on base average. If the on base average is truly higher in such a case, the opposing pitchers are making a mistake -- they should be pitching to the batter the same as they normally would. I am unconvinced that batters do significantly better on balance in such situations. 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. >Again, I have no printed stats for the Madlock case. It is based on >my personal observation at the time, which was that Madlock was >put into the 6 spot when he was acquired, and became a steady .280 >hitter. He was quoted at the time as saying he didn't care, as long >as the team won. When he was moved to 3 (in front of Stargell) he >immediately became the .320+ hitter he had been before. Again, the batting average I would expect to be affected. What happened to his on base average? It is certainly true that batting average is overemphasized in the baseball world as a whole. There are probably a good many managers and players who make this mistake. (Earl Weaver doesn't. Bill Madlock probably does.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108