schneider@vlnvax.DEC (08/15/85)
<> ---> I don't know who wrote this > ---> David Rubin ---> personal pearls of wisdom <> In regards to the David Rubin mega-comments: <> <> One thing I don't see (in Pena-Carter Arguments 1985) is that to be <> a legitimate statistic, it cannot reflect ANY teammate interaction. >All statistics reflect, to some extent, teammate action. Some, >however (such as R's and RBI's) are positively DOMINATED by it. >The best we can do is to rid ourselves of statistics which are >directly influenced by teammate actions; we cannot rid ourselves of >indirect infuences. So I just did the best we could... We can do much better than to rid ourselves of such statistics. Yes there are those who have developed further statistics which better capture a players offensive production, but that does not render the lesser stats meaningless, deserving of expulsion. And besides, the Globe does not provide daily statistics of who's leading the league in runs created. Also there exists methods by which runs and ribbies can be isolated somewhat by teammates offense, or those that would yield important results when seen as a per-game number and compared to others. For instance, how many runs per game does the lead-off hitter for the Yankees score when its Rickey Henderson? How many when its not? (One of the things I've longed imagined is to have all baseball statistics on-line. I mean ALL, meaning basically a score sheet of each game. Wouldn't it be nice then if they were in a huge database, ready to be compiled into new statistics with a few simple instructions. The Sabrematicians would certainly get a run for their money. Bill James uses a PC, but seems to regard it a little as the enemy and a little as a simpleton. I imagine he (and others) probably, with the aid of whatever staff they have, tabulate by going through the score sheets by hand, etc.) My point is that it would be nice to live with more relevant statistics, but while we can only read them roughly once a year, they are difficult to accept and understand. The established ones have a huge lead that can only be limited when new stats are readily available. Has anyone here seen the Bill James Newsletter? What's it like? <> I don't buy that. Mr. Rubin states that for example, RBI's, Runs, <> and Batting average are somewhat meaningless but on base percentage <> and slugging percentage aren't. >Runs and rbi's are almost meaningless (that I said) in judging >individual performance; batting average I merely regard as poorly >conceived. It was established as a hitting statistic when power was >unimportant and walks exceedingly rare, i.e. under circumstances that >no longer hold. Rather than poorly conceived, the batting average works very well to measure something which is not as important as the general conception. But it does offer its own one-dimensional view of offense with no error whatsoever (well, not counting the official scorer or umpire). This is a useful tool when isolated, and useful in comparison. I'm somewhat skeptical of the BA's history as offered here. I think its just a conveniently compiled statistic which works to a great degree. ... >Intentional walks should be subtracted off, but there are not so >frequent as to really screw up OBA. OBA isn't perfect, just superior. BA and OBA measure different aspects of the game. Inherently they are correlated, but neither can do justice in explaining a player's offensive contribution. The problem with OBA is that a walk is a single is a catcher's interference. But obviously a single is BETTER than a walk. OBA isn't perfect, nor superior. As statistics go, they both do their (different) jobs. > ... however, OBA and SA both far outperform >any of the other standard stats in predicting run production (should >I post a summary on Pete Palmer's study of the issue?), and together, >they do VERY well, indeed. In tandem, I surmise, OBA and SA can well approximate a players offensive production. That doesn't obliterate the usefulness of other stats, namely the ones derided here. I would be very interested in knowing what Pete Palmer has to say. I would note that Bill James has developed his own Runs Created stat. In the past he has given some evidence of its superiority to Palmer's stat, but to show his objectivity this year he published someone else's stat which outperforms his to a large extent. I don't subscribe to everything James has to say, but as far as I know, he's the best at what he does. <> I personally would rather have a Carter than a Pena, but even with <> all the stats produced, I don't think anyone could give a DEFINITIVE <> answer to who is better. >Au contraire -- the evidence of an offensive difference is >overwhelming. If you are not persuaded that this is so, there is >probably nothing that could persuade you. We'd be left without a >decent way to carry on an argument beyond the level of SEZ WHO; now >what fun would that be? Ahhh, the crux of the issue. I do believe that Carter is offensively quite superior to Pena. Defensively, I can't say because I almost never see Pena play (I know there are stats; I don't know their tallies though, and I'm not sure if they can begin to measure what a catcher does). From most accounts both are among the premeire defensive catchers in the game. But Pena has quite a few years on Carter, giving him the edge in current value in my book. It depends on the team, but in general I'll take the younger Pena. Daniel Schneider {decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vlnvax!schneider
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/19/85)
A few comments on Dan Schneider's comments on my comments on Paul Bejamin's comments (or: "Who's On First" in a net version!). > (One of the things I've longed imagined is to have all baseball statistics > on-line. I mean ALL, meaning basically a score sheet of each game. > Wouldn't it be nice then if they were in a huge database, ready to be > compiled into new statistics with a few simple instructions. The > Sabrematicians would certainly get a run for their money. Bill James > uses a PC, but seems to regard it a little as the enemy and a little > as a simpleton. I imagine he (and others) probably, with the aid > of whatever staff they have, tabulate by going through the score sheets > by hand, etc.) Were that it so. I think James is working in that direction with his "Project Scoresheet", wherein volunteers in each city compile EVERYTHING (hope they have cable TV!) on their team and are sending it to James in Missouri. > >..... It [BA] was established as a hitting statistic when power was > >unimportant and walks exceedingly rare, i.e. under circumstances that > >no longer hold. > ... [I am skeptical] of [BA's] history as presented here... BA has been around longer than professional baseball. Back in the late nineteenth century, the HR leader for the league usually had about four-six homers, and walks were given on seven, eight, or even nine balls, and were extremely rare (especially as pitchers were only forty-five or fifty feet from home plate). It was during this era that BA established itself as THE official hitting statisitic, and the league leader in BA was spoken of as the "batting leader". > BA and OBA measure different aspects of the game. Inherently they are > correlated, but neither can do justice in explaining a player's > offensive contribution. The problem with OBA is that a walk is a > single is a catcher's interference. But obviously a single is BETTER > than a walk. OBA isn't perfect, nor superior. As statistics go, they > both do their (different) jobs. What OB measures is more closely associated with runs produced that what BA measures. You are correct in saying they merely do different jobs; however, they are used for the same job, evaluating offensive performance (i.e. run production), a job they were not specifically constructed for. OB outperforms BA in that incidental job. In short, to use either BA or OB to summarize a player's offensive contribution is to place more weight upon these stats than they ought to bear. However, OB stands up better to the abuse than BA; this does not mean I advocate abuse! OB and SA, when taken together, outshine any other combination of official stats. > .... But Pena has quite a few years on Carter, giving him the edge > in current value in my book. It depends on the team, but in general I'll > take the younger Pena. A solid reason to prefer Pena! However, I think that the discussion was on who is the BETTER catcher, which I interpreted as a question regarding their seasonal performance. To decide who is more VALUABLE (as distinct from who is better), we would have to find some way to account for Pena's likely greater longevity. Pena is 28, Carter 31. Carter will probably catch until, say, 34; Pena, while having a longer way to go, appears durable (defensively), and so we'll assume the same. That's 3 more for Carter, 6 for Pena. Carter is so productive offensively, though, that he will continue to play everyday even after he stops catching (I expect him to be Foster's successor in left field); Pena may have a tough time establishing himself as an outfielder or first baseman after he's through as a catcher. Even in his best year (1984), Pena was less productive at the plate than most NL outfielders, although this would not preclude him from playing with a weaker team. Thus, for the next three (or so) years, both Carter and Pena will remain top catchers; for the three years after that, Carter will be a premier outfielder and Pena an ace catcher; for the three years after that, Pena may be a benchman for a good team or a starting outfielder/firstbaseman for a weaker one. Carter's value will drop off more rapidly than Pena's in the future, as Carter approaches his likely retirement, but the above description suggests to me that Carter might still have more current value. He will, in my opinion, be more valuable in the first period, and obviously less valuable in the third; the question hinges on whether and to what extent it is better to have an excellent hitting outfielder with a great arm and limited range or a superb defensive catcher with a good bat albeit with limited power. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david