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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!djvh
From: djvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDJ)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: RE: World Series SA+OB
Message-ID: <514@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 18:31:50 EST
Article-I.D.: drutx.514
Posted: Fri Nov  8 18:31:50 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 07:29:34 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 45

> 
> "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
> 
> The team with the greater (SA+OB) has won 24/42 of the series.  I was
> very surprised that it wasn't 30 or 35/42.
> 
> It *appears* that since the return of stolen bases and the advent of
> relief pitchers, (SA+OB) is no longer a good indicator of winning.
> The verdict is still out on whether or not it is a good indicator of
> run production.
>
  Here is data for the discussion of "runs vs (SA + OB)":

  This chart contains the records for all World Series from 1940-1981.

  1940's :  8-2
  1950's :  8-2
  1960's :  8-2
  1970's :  9-1
  80 & 81:  0-2
  -------------
  42 years 33-9 

	So, while it *appears* that (SA + OB) is not a good indicator for 
winning games, it does *appear* to be a good (consistantly over the years)
indicator of runs scored.  The WS team with the higher (SA+OB) outscored the
opponent in 33/42 of the WS played between 1940-1981.
	This brings us back (here we go again . . :-)) to Carter vs Pena.
Carter has the higher (SA+OB), and probably would produce more runs than
Pena given any team each might play for.  According to the data above, we
cannot *really* say that Carter will win more games for you than Pena.
I do think Carter is the better player, but we need a better stat to show
this, if there is one.

Dave Van Handel