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!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg. Message-ID: <778@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 13:03:33 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.778 Posted: Tue Nov 5 13:03:33 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:25:59 EST References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP> <757@mmintl.UUCP> <495@philabs.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Distribution: na Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 55 Summary: In article <495@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes: >consider the numbers posted by Dave Van Handel: > >"Also, regarding the (SA+OB) argument, I looked it up for all World Series >from 1940-1981 (the year of my Baseball Encyclopedia). The results follow: > >>1940's : 7-3 >>1950's : 7-3 >>1960's : 5-5 >>1970's : 5-5 >>80 & 81: 0-2 >>------------- >>42 years 24-18 >> > >In recent years (last 20+), SA+OBA has been totally independent of winning. So >much for the luck theory. This considers much more than 3 or 4 series. Did you read the rest of what I wrote? 42 series aren't statistically significant either. It takes hundreds. >Also >note the circular nature of your argument #2. You state that the Yankees >dominated in all statistical departments. This applies only to those stats >in which the Yankees dominated! They did not dominate in such stats as >hitting with men in scoring position with the score tied. When you realize >this, then you see the circular nature of these arguments with statistics. >If you compute only certain statistics, then you can always explain away >contrary results as "luck". But you can always compute new stats that >match the results perfectly, i.e., you can retrofit the stats to the data. >This points out the futility of statistical arguments. But batting average, slugging average, on base average, earned run average, and runs scored weren't retrofitted to the data. These are standard statistics which are generally applied. Since the measures are pre-selected, the argument is not circular. I tried to give some suggestions about how one could actually measure luck vs. clutch hitting and related factors. Until such measures are actually made, we can only speculate. Arguments from insufficient data can only confuse the issue. As to luck, do you really think that if the Yankees and Pirates in 1960 had taken a few days off, then played another series just as important as the first, that the Yankees could be expected to outscore the Pirates but lose the series? >The only thing we can say with certainty is that SA+OBA clearly does not >correlate with winning a short series in the last 20 or so years (since >artificial turf, night baseball, etc.). The only thing we can say with certainty is that we don't know. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108