jmh@ltuxa.UUCP (cecw 64lt503310-Jon Mcecw) (08/09/85)
The poll on the strike is still going on, and the responses arre still coming in, so I will wait a while to post the results. Last night, for all that missed the game, I saw my first live triple play (on TV) as the Cubs were blasted by St. Louis 8-0. Runners on 1st and 2nd, Pendleton (St. Louis) lines to Durham at 1st. Durham fires to Speier at second, but unbeknownst to everyone, the second base ump (correctly) calls safe as Speier was off the bag. Speier immediately fires back to Durham trying for what he thinks is the third out at first, buit the ball hits the runner (Van Slyke) in the helmet and skips off to the outfield side. Van Slyke hits first and motors for 2nd as Jack Clark, the original runner on 2nd wanders aimlessly around 2nd. Van Slyke passes Clark, and becomes the second out. Speier has words with the ump at 2nd and finally determines that Van Slyke was just called out and Clark is still a legitimate runner. Clark again wanders off 2nd toward third or the dugout or something. Sandberg, who has tracked down the ball, throws to Speier who now gets Clark in a pickle, and two throws later Clark becomes the third out. The play takes 28 seconds to complete which might be a record for a triple play. You can't beat fun... 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. 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. Well, teammates affect walks (e.g. Coleman gets on base in front of you, or first base is open, etc.) I suppose one could say, and let's face it , it is a team sport. So to only look at stats that are "individual" seems a bit simplistic. 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. Well, I'l post the results to the poll soon. Until we meet again, Jon Hanrath ihnp4!ltuxa!jmh
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (08/10/85)
> 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... > 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. >.............................Well, teammates affect walks (e.g. > Coleman gets on base in front of you, or first base is open, etc.) > I suppose one could say, and let's face it , it is a team sport. So > to only look at stats that are "individual" seems a bit simplistic. Intentional walks should be subtracted off, but there are not so frequent as to really screw up OBA. OBA isn't perfect, just superior. Indirect effects are often unproven (I don't think, for example, that McGee is walking much more often than he did without Coleman in front of him) and, when actually established, are far less significant than direct effects in baseball. Some error is inevitable (baseball, like life, is not deterministic); 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. > 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? David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david