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!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg.
Message-ID: <489@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 19:13:41 EST
Article-I.D.: philabs.489
Posted: Mon Oct 28 19:13:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Oct-85 14:54:13 EST
References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 61

> > This is just a short (thank God!) note on team slugging and
> > on-base averages. The Cards did beat LA in those stats, as well
> > as on the field, but the opposite is true for KC vs. Tor, and
> > so far in the World Series.
> > 
> >          BA      SA     OBA     SA+OBA
> > 
> > KC     .225     .366   .294     .660
> > Tor    .269     .372   .319     .681
> 
> > 
> > Doesn't look like team OBA+SA is so important, does it?
> > 
> >                                  Paul Benjamin
> 
> Two quick observations.
> 
> 1)   The results of one seven game series are not going to convince
>    the average person of anything. You may remember that in the 1960
>    W.S. the Yankees outscored the Pirates by about 30 or so runs,
>    yet Pittsburgh won it in seven games. By your reasoning we could
>    conclude that scoring runs isn't so important.

Actually, I would agree that just the total of runs is not important.
What counts is when they are scored. The NY-Pitt series you mention is
the most extreme example of this. But it is definitely true that the
gross total (or differential) of runs is not a strong indicator of 
winning games. The same holds in other sports, such as tennis, where it
is often the case that the winner has won fewer games, but won more sets.
This is particularly true between strong players.

So, no we cannot conclude by my reasoning that scoring runs is not
important, because it is awfully hard to win without scoring runs! But
we can conclude that just scoring more runs over the course of the series
is not important. A 12-1 win is no more important than a 2-1 win.

Also note that you omit the stats that I consider most important. The
whole point of my posting is that run scoring is not at all dependent
on SA+OBA. After all, KC was actually doing better in SA+OBA in the series 
than against Toronto, but scoring fewer runs. And this is not just the
results of one seven-game series. You mention another, so that makes
two. It may be the case that there are a number of others (just find
a series in which the losing team had a lopsided win.)

> 2)   I don't believe that anyone has suggested that we should actually
>    look at the sum of OBA and SA (someone please correct me if I'm
>    wrong). I was under the impression that OBA+SA was intended to
>    mean "OBA and SA", not "OBA plus SA". Combining the two into one
>    number loses much of the information that they contain.
>      If anyone insists, however, on combining them into one number, it
>    would make a lot more sense to multiply them rather than add them.
>    This would give a more accurate measure of a player's offensive
>    value.
>                           - Bruce Gamble  (abgamble@water.UUCP)

No. The stat espoused by David Rubin is OBA plus SA. This is the
stat printed in the NY Times on occasion. 

				Paul Benjamin

P.S. There's a typo in my stats. The Tor total is .691, not .681.