Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site water.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watnot!water!abgamble@water.UUCP (Bruce Gamble) From: abgamble@water.UUCP (Bruce Gamble) Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg. Message-ID: <941@water.UUCP> Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 11:25:17 EST Article-I.D.: water.941 Posted: Sun Oct 27 11:25:17 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 28-Oct-85 00:16:00 EST References: <483@philabs.UUCP> Sender: abgamble@water.UUCP Distribution: na Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 36 > 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. 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)