dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (08/10/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR STATISTICS *** > With this article I begin my case for Gary Carter being a greater > asset than Tony Pena. Due to the extreme length (and heavy reading) > of my essay, I've broken it down into three parts. Part I, this > article you are now reading, begins with a bibliography and a point by > point answer to Paul Benjamin's last article. As it has been some > time since that article appeared, I have reproduced it fully to > refresh the memories of those of you who can't remember its details, > and have outlined the nature of the response that will appear in Parts > II (Offense) and III (Defense) to his particular points. Part II is > already written, and will be posted one day after this introduction. > Part III is nearly complete, and should be posted by the end of the > week. etc. etc. It's really a shame that you are putting so much time into this, when it means nothing to me. The whole difference between us is one of underlying philosophy. You are a statistician, and love all sorts of wonderfully contorted statistics. I couldn't care less about on base percentage, slugging average, homeruns per at bat, etc. What I like to see is a winning team, which is constructed from winning team players. Now, first of all, if you are going to go back more than a year or so, I will agree totally with you that Carter was better than Pena. After all, for most of Carter's career, Pena was in the minors. The question was, which was the better pick to start THIS year's all-star game. I couldn't care less about 1981 or 1982 or 1983. But most importantly of all, we completely disagree on how to measure the players, so any argument from your statistical point of view is irrelevant to me, just as my argument will be meaningless to you. When constructing your all-star team, I gladly give you your type of player: Parker, Blyleven, etc. These statistical marvels are losers. They are not team players. They are concerned with their own numbers, and their careers reflect those numbers. I have always felt, for example, that Phil Garner was more important to a team than Bill Madlock. You, I think, would say, "But look at the BA, the on base pct, etc." Great! You can put together a team which will lead the league in all sorts of statistical categories, and I will put together a team to win the World Series. For an example of such a team, look at the Mets. (Don't say this is due to Carter. They were the same last year - nearly won the division with terrible stats - they are often outhit when winning, and were outscored over the course of the season.) We could go on indefinitely with statistical arguments ("Why do you subtract HR's? "Because otherwise the run is counted twice." "Why do you center so much on R and RBI?" "Because I feel runs are all that ultimately count on offense; the point of baseball is not to get men on base." etc. etc.) But this would be pointless (and boring). There is no way that you are going to convince me that the Gold Glove was awarded arbitrarily, or that your baseball knowledge is superior to their collective knowledge. Nor will you convince me that the statistics you cite are not lineup-dependent (check Madlock's stats batting third vs. batting sixth, or before and after Stargell's retirement.) The bottom line is that ALL statistics are lineup-dependent, e.g., on-base percentage increases when batting in front of a good player. After all, no player plays baseball all by himself. This is a team game. Furthermore, you say that the Pirate lineup was not that much worse than the Montreal lineup in 83 and 84 because the two teams finished about the same. But OF COURSE, the Pirates did this due to pitching, and the Expos did this due to hitting! Nice feat of legerdemain yourself. The Pirate lineup sucked last year and this year, as anyone can see, whereas the Expo lineup (offense!) was not bad at all. So let us put this argument to rest. You will post your beloved statistics and I will ignore them, because I am not, at heart, a statistics fan - I am a baseball fan.
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (08/12/85)
> It's really a shame that you are putting so much time into this, when > it means nothing to me. The whole difference between us is one of > underlying philosophy. You are a statistician, and love all sorts of > wonderfully contorted statistics. I couldn't care less about on base > percentage, slugging average, homeruns per at bat, etc. What I like to > see is a winning team, which is constructed from winning team players. My first reaction to reading Paul Benjamin's posting was to attack all the obvious errors in it. For instance his decision to ignore the facts when it appears they won't support his opinion. > So let us put this argument to rest. You will post your beloved statistics > and I will ignore them ... What I am going to deal with instead, is his opinion, evidenced throughout the article, which is best stated in his final sentence. His implication is, of course, that someone who enjoys baseball statistics a great deal, isn't a REAL baseball fan. > ... I am not, at heart, a statistics fan - > I am a baseball fan. I too am a baseball fan. I love to watch Ozzie Smith turn a double play. I love to watch Pete Rose dive into third base. And I used to love watching Steve Rogers sweat and stain and grimace his way to another 1-hit shutout. BECAUSE I love this sport so much, I want to learn about it. Statistics provide one excellent method of doing this. Note that statistics, by themselves, are nothing more than meaningless numbers, but put them in some context and they can reveal a wealth of information. For example, consider the following 8 numbers. 175 142 126 174 184 151 139 165 By themselves, these are just meaningless numbers, but if I tell you that they are the RBI totals for one player over an eight year period, they suddenly take on a life of their own. They tell an incredible story of a player with great power, a man with impressive consistancy and durability. They speak of a fine offence that must have surrounded him, and of a team that was probably at or near the top of their league for the better part of a decade. All this from as simple a statistic as RBI. It probably won't surprise you to learn that these numbers belong to Lou Gehrig, since he is one of only a handful of players who these statements could be describing. The point of this is to say that yes statistics can be very interesting, but ONLY as a tool to help one understand the game better. Statistics exist because of baseball, NOT the other way around. If one has no interest in the game then one cannot possibly be interested in BA, HR, OBA & SA. However, if one wishes some insights into baseball, then statistics are the most powerful tools we have and as such should not be dismissed as a group. -- Bruce Gamble - abgamble@water.UUCP
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/12/85)
[Sorry, but I was too contentious to just let it go!] >.............You are a statistician, and love all sorts of > wonderfully contorted statistics. I couldn't care less about on base > percentage, slugging average, homeruns per at bat, etc. What I like to > see is a winning team, which is constructed from winning team players. In regard to what YOU are interested: How are we to know what makes a winning team? And, more important to the issue at hand, how are we to know to what an extent an INDIVIDUAL contributes to victory? What makes a player a "winning team player" save for your seal of approval? > The question was, which was the better pick to start THIS all-star game... That was the original question, but in your first posting, you declared Pena to be the better player. Not the better defensive player (which would have been too indeterminate a matter for me to bother responding), not the better player from April till June of 1985 (which I'd dispute, but with far less evidence), but just the better player. Your response to my first response did nothing to limit your claims to defense or 1985; in fact, you challenged me to back up what I was saying with some stats. Well, you got 'em. ;-) > But most importantly of all, we completely disagree on how to measure the > players, so any argument from your statistical point of view is irrelevant > to me, just as my argument will be meaningless to you. I am willing to discuss the merits of various forms of measurement. It appears to me that you are not seriously interested in how we measure things, so long as they are comfortable for you. You probably even wrote your Congressman denouncing the metric system...:-). I suspect that had my "contorted" statistics (SA, OB, PO, A, et. al.) supported your belief system, you would have rushed to embrace them, much as you rushed to embrace the much more "basic" statistics of BA and NGGR84 (Number of Gold Gloves Received in 1984). > When constructing your all-star team, I gladly give you your type > of player: Parker, Blyleven, etc. These statistical marvels are losers. > They are not team players. They are concerned with their own numbers, I'm not that familiar with Blyleven, but I'll vouch for Parker as a team player. He's welcome on "my" team. Most people who apply words such as "character", "clutch", "team player", etc., are doing so to cloak the discrepancy between their prejudices towards certain players and the performance of those players on the field. The player who grouses but performs brilliantly helps his team win; the player who lives the life of a saint while producing marginally helps his team be happy. Performance on the field, not in the locker room, is what makes a winning team. Moreover, the two archetypes I present are exceedingly rare; almost all baseball players want to play, want to win, and will do their best to do both. There wasn't a man on the NL all-star squad (nor the AL squad, as far I know) who pursues their "numbers" to the detriment of their teammates. > ....You can put together a team which will lead the league in all sorts of > statistical categories, and I will put together a team to win the World > Series. If I pick first, you don't stand a chance (well, not much of one). My team will excel at scoring and preventing runs. Yours will excel at "giving 100%". Their 100% just won't be enough. >For an example of such a team, look at the Mets. (Don't say this > is due to Carter. They were the same last year - nearly won the division > with terrible stats - they are often outhit when winning, and were outscored > over the course of the season.) The Mets of 1984 were, in some sense, "lucky": they won 90 games while being outscored (being outhit seems irrelevant here, as *I* am the one who has been pointing up the weakness of the link between hits and runs). They were able to do this because their bullpen performed awesomely last season; they thus won a disproportionate share of the close games. The Mets of 1985 have a mediocre bullpen, but because their starters have done the job and their offense has picked up tremendously, they are now outscoring their opponents to the degree one would expect of a first place team. If Sisk and Orosco were performing as they did in 1984, the result would be wonderful to behold, indeed. You're right that the Mets of 1985 are performing nearly as well (actually, you're wrong, as they are above .600 this season, while ending last season at .556, but I thought I'd be generous) as in 1984; you are wrong to conclude that Carter makes little difference. The Mets haven't just gained Carter since last season; they lost Brooks and their previously super bullpen, and they have gained ground. Carter appears to be very valuable indeed, if you really want to look at things this way. > We could go on indefinitely with statistical arguments ("Why do you > subtract HR's? "Because otherwise the run is counted twice." A misleading answer. If a man singles another home, the run is counted twice: once as a run scored for the man who crosses the plate, another as an rbi for the batter. Why treat a homerun differently? >..............................................."Why do > you center so much on R and RBI?" "Because I feel runs are all that > ultimately count on offense... Runs are all that count, and this is all well and good when discussing TEAMS: how do we then free the individual from the burden/aid of his teammates when judging his contribution? When discussing individuals, it is more to the point to discuss individual accomplishment. >..................................................... There is > no way that you are going to convince me that the Gold Glove was awarded > arbitrarily, If you accept the opinion of "authority" as final, why do you bother discussing such things on your own? Why do you assume that awards are never given in error? How else, if not by prejudice or coin flip, is an award given when two contenders possess equal virtue? Why does "Gold Glove" == best at position (unless fielding is the only thing that influences winning)? >or that your baseball knowledge is superior to their collective knowledge. How dare I, eh? How dare any of us, then! Dissent as sacrilege! Baseball transformed from art (critics may dispute) and science (analysts may dispute) to religion! I think Paul's going to excommunicate me. :-) More seriously, the weight of the argument should be counted more than the weight of its supporters. Polling is not the path to truth. >...................Nor will you convince me that the statistics you > cite are not lineup-dependent (check Madlock's stats batting third vs. > batting sixth, or before and after Stargell's retirement.) I'd just LOVE to discuss them. Post or mail those stats if you think they refute me. That's what discussion is all about, I thought. I wonder whether the differences you refer to are due to the things you say, or are due to you retaining information about runs and rbi's (which would be affected), or to other factors (I seem to recall Madlock having some serious injury problems since Stargell's retirement). >......................................................The bottom > line is that ALL statistics are lineup-dependent, e.g., on-base percentage > increases when batting in front of a good player. They may or may not. However, the difference in OB caused by such a position in the batting order is certainly far, far, far less than the difference caused in runs scored. I do not claim perfection, merely improvement. >...........................................After all, no player > plays baseball all by himself. This is a team game. True. But if we still want to evaluate individuals (and we do!), we must, to the extent possible, ignore the rest of the team! If it were a team game (period), you would have never plucked Pena from the "anonymity" of the Pirate roster to discuss his PERSONAL virtues. > Furthermore, you say that the Pirate lineup was not that much worse than > the Montreal lineup in 83 and 84 because the two teams finished about > the same. But OF COURSE, the Pirates did this due to pitching, and the Expos > did this due to hitting! Nice feat of legerdemain yourself. Untrue. The Pirates outscored the Expos. I guess you didN'T read those articles I posted. >................................................the Pirate > lineup sucked last year and this year, as anyone can see, whereas the > Expo lineup (offense!) was not bad at all. Saying so doesn't make it so. The Pirate lineup did "suck" early last year, but over the course of the entire season, it outperformed many other lineups, including the Expos! (This does not show that the Pirate lineup didn't "suck", only that if it did, so did the Expo lineup.) > So let us put this argument to rest. You will post your beloved statistics > and I will ignore them, because I am not, at heart, a statistics fan - > I am a baseball fan. On the contrary, you are quite willing to USE whatever statistics support your beliefs, regardless of their merits and impervious to suggestions they don't mean what you say they mean. I am no less a baseball fan because I desire to understand the game better. Are you more of a fan for spurning information? David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david