Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg. Message-ID: <351@pedsgd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 11:15:13 EST Article-I.D.: pedsgd.351 Posted: Mon Nov 11 11:15:13 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Nov-85 04:45:44 EST References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP> <757@mmintl.UUCP> <495@philabs.UUCP> <778@mmintl.UUCP> Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Distribution: na Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 49 Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <778@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: {the continuing saga of OBA + SA versus gut feeling in predicting runs scored} > >Did you read the rest of what I wrote? 42 series aren't statistically >significant either. It takes hundreds. > { bunch of stuff deleted } > { >> = P. Benjamin ? } >>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 I have to agree with Frank on this, there just isnt enough data to draw any conclusions. However, I think we can speculate that SA+OBA is irrelevant in modern series play due to current pitching practice. It seems logical that in an era when starting pitchers worked every 3 days and usually went the distance that the team with the better offensive statistics was probably the winner. The deviation in pitching quality was small. In modern baseball the situation is quite different. It is entirely possible that a team with 2 excellent starters and an otherwise mediocre pitching staff could win 4 low scoring games and get blown out in the other 3. None of this has any bearing on whether OBA + SA is a good statistic for rating an individuals contribution to his team. In fact, when I looked at the final statistics for the year, OBA + SA DID correlate very strongly with my gut feeling as to how important individuals were to their team. As an aside to Paul B. who wondered some months ago why Hubie Brooks had about the same number of RBI's as G. Carter despite a 10% worse team batting average, Brooks also had about 10% more at bats. In addition, Montreal has perhaps the best lead-off man in the NL, Tim Raines, who along with stealing 50 bases has, surprise, one of the best OBA's in the league. So what we see in this case is exactly what D. Rubin has claimed; RBI's are influenced by lineup effects, OBA and SA are not. Just trying to generate some heat for the winter. Bob Weiler