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: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg. Message-ID: <500@philabs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 14:31:03 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.500 Posted: Thu Nov 7 14:31:03 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 21:22:40 EST References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP> <757@mmintl.UUCP> <495@philabs.UUCP> <778@mmintl.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 72 > > In article <495@philabs.UUCP> dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) writes: > >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 > >> > > > >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. > > Did you read the rest of what I wrote? 42 series aren't statistically > significant either. It takes hundreds. 42 Series aren't significant?!?! That's over an entire season's worth of games! Perhaps you should look up the definition of statistically significant. If we ignore these stats, we might as well ignore all season stats. > >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. > > But batting average, slugging average, on base average, earned run average, > and runs scored weren't retrofitted to the data. These are standard > statistics which are generally applied. Since the measures are pre-selected, > the argument is not circular. Think again. They dominated only in the stats in which they dominated. Also please note that those "standard" stats are highly redundant - they all are different ways of saying similar things. For example, team runs and the opposing team's ERA are very similar. And note that there are stats in which the Pirates led, such as game-winning RBI. Also realize that these statistical categories were not handed down by God. They arose because they were retrofitted at one time to previous data. Thus, they were never pre-selected. BA and ERA did not exist before baseball! > >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. No. We DO know that SA+OBA does not correlate with winning a short series in the last 20 years or so, which is EXACTLY what I said. Thus, what evidence there is does NOT support the position that SA+OBA is a great statistic. Note that I have been very careful here. I have NOT said that SA+OBA has been proven to be bad, nor that it may not be a useful stat at times. All I said in the original posting is that the evidence does not support those who worship this stat. If you have been following the discussion over this stat, then you know that some people feel it is the best stat available. Showing that the evidence does not support this in series play is sufficient to discredit this. Paul Benjamin