From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:18:25 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <5461@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
> Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu:
> 
>>In article <5440@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
> 
>>> Thus spake 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard):
>>>>
>>>>Why not Tabler?  Is 50-102 (or whatever) not a big enough sample size?
>>> 
>>> Exactly.  Especially after you take into account the fact that you're only
>>> looking at Tabler because he was the extreme point in a large population of
>>> players.  If I toss 200 coins 100 times each, one of them will likely show
>>> a very skewed ratio of heads to tails, even if all the coins are fair.
>>
>>	From a statistical standpoint, 102 AB is enough in this kind of
>>situation for a sample size.
> 
> No, it isn't.
> 
> If you were looking at only one player, chosen at random, then this would be
> true.  But you aren't; you're looking at Pat Tabler in particular, and you're
> looking at him precisely because his batting average with the bases loaded is
> so eye-catching.  It now becomes a question of (drumroll, please) Extremal
> Value Theory, which deals with the distribution of the most extreme observed
> value in a collection of independent observations.
> 
> This was the point of my comment about tossing 200 coins.  If you toss one
> coin 102 times, we have a very good idea of what constitutes surprising vs.
> non-surprising numbers of heads to observe.  On the other hand, if I toss
> 200 identical coins 102 times each, do you have any feel for how many heads
> you should expect to see from the coin that comes up heads most often, even
> if all the coins are fair?  I doubt it; I certainly don't.  There is a branch
> of statistics that deals with these questions, though; I'll try to post a
> quick summary of relevant results sometime soon.
>                                                                        

	Sounds like some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to me. Are you really
saying that batting with the bases loaded is as random as flipping coins? I
should have been clearer on what I meant. Saying a guy has a .500 BA with the
bases full doesn't mean much when he has only 10 AB. On the other hand, if he
has 100 AB, it means more, because some of the random fluctuation can be taken
out, and you get a truer picture of how a batter hits in such a situation,
since he has sustained his performance over a longer duration.
        Well, if the greed of the players, owners, and little kids who collect
baseball cards for profit rather than fun don't destroy the game, statheads
like you will. When you start expecting people to know advanced statistics,
quantum physics, and tarot card reading to properly understand baseball, you
have gone too far. Why can't you just accept that Tabler, over most of his
career, has been an excellent hitter with the bases loaded? I'm not saying he
still is, or that he belongs in the HOF because of it.
	
> 
>>	Also, are you saying that it is impossible for someone to be very good
>>at one thing, especially if the one thing he is good at he is much better than
>>other players? 
> 
> No, but I do suspect that it's impossible to be very good at one thing, and
> yet quite mediocre at very similar things.  As Roger said, if Tabler's so damn
> great with the bases loaded, why isn't he at least pretty good with men on
> first and second, or second and third?  If it's a mental thing, then mostly
> I would conclude that Tabler is "choking" in 99% of his PAs...

	Tabler (as of 1990) was hitting about .265 with the bases empty, .310
with runners on, and about .322 with runners in scoring position. Considering
that his career batting average was around .275 at the time (I might have to
check this again), that's a pretty good jump in batting average (by
comparision, the average player in 1990 hit about 10 points higher with
runners in scoring position). Tabler *does* hit well with runners in scoring
position, about 50 points over his career batting average. 

Brandon Cope