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!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg.
Message-ID: <495@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 14:15:10 EST
Article-I.D.: philabs.495
Posted: Mon Nov  4 14:15:10 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 06:44:53 EST
References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP> <757@mmintl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 102

> In article <489@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes:
> >> > 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.
> 
> The relation between statistics like SA+OBA and scoring runs is pretty
> much like that between scoring runs and winning games.  I think we are
> getting close to the meat of the argument here.
> 
> Let's look at the 60 series here.  The question, I believe, is the following:
> (to put it baldly) was the outcome the result of luck or skill?  That is,
> which of the following descriptions of the series is more accurate:
> 
> (1) The Pirates proved themselves the better team by their ability to score
>     runs in clutch situations.  Although the Yankees were better at getting
>     men to cross the plate, Pittsburgh got them when they needed them.
> 
> (2) Although it is hard to tell from such a short series, the Yankees
>     dominance in all statistical departments makes it seem quite likely
>     that they have the better team.  However, the Pirates were fortunate
>     enough to win all the close ones and only lose blowouts, and so won
>     the series.
> 
		...
> 
> Now, I think it is obvious that neither of these extremes is correct.  But
> I think that number 2 is closer to the truth than number 1.
> 
		...
>
> LOOKING JUST AT THREE OR FOUR SERIES IS COMPLETELY
> MEANINGLESS.
> 

I disagree completely. just 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

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.

Dave Van Handel"

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. 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.

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.). This casts doubt on its importance
in evaluating players and their contributions to their teams.

					Paul Benjamin