From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:22:20 GMT

In <1992Jul25.221458.15663@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>In <1992Jul25.184843.6724@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

>>In <1992Jul25.164618.8657@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg Spira) writes:

>>>The problem in this case, of course, is that Puckett's individual statistics
>>>are much closer to Luis Salazar's individual statistics the last few years 
>>>than Barry Bonds' individual statistics (though, obviously, that won't be
>>>the case this year).  

>>>        RC27 '90    RC27 '91
>>>Puck      5.35        4.78
>>>Salaz     3.57        3.77
>>>Bonds     9.36        8.66

>>This is the typical example of how some people abuse statistics.

>No.  

Yes.  And I should have said "misuse" not "abuse".  Perhaps I was 
anticipating the responses.

>>Puckett had 195 hits in '91.  This is more than Salazar's output for
>>'90 and '91 combined. 

>Aha! Here we have a good example of how some people abuse statistics!
>No context whatsoever.  Just some numbers with no real meaning by
>themselves thrown out.

The context is how much a player has contributed to the team's quest for
the WC.  This is quite clear if you have been reading my posts.  I think 
that Puckett's 195 hits were a significant contribution to that quest.  I
don't see how Salazar's RC is relevent in that context.  If you think that
Salazar and Puckett are comparable in value to their teams based on the 
RC27 statistic I am not going to argue with you.  If you are not saying 
that they are comparable then I am not quite sure what your point is.

>I'm going to have to send the Society Against The Abuse of Statistics
>after Roger.  (That's SATAS in shortened form)   

What is the point of this?
 
>>Salazar hasn't even been an everyday player.  
>>How can you say that Puckett's contribution compares with Salazar's?

>I didn't say exactly that.  I said that "Puckett's individual statistics
>are much closer to Luis Salazar's individual statistics than Barry Bonds'
>individual statistics."  Since I used RC27, I was obviously referring to
>their rate of offensive production.  Obviously, Puckett has had more at-bats
>than Salazar, and his total contribution would be higher if you rated by
>a total rather than a rate based stat.  But the fact remains that Puckett's
>rate of offensive production was closer to Salazar's rate than Bonds rate.
>And while Salazar was not a full time player, he did have 785 plate
>appearances during '90 and '91, and he was not a platoon player, so his
>stats are quite legitimate.

I was talking about the contribution two stars have each made to their team's
quest for the WC.  How is the RC27 of a less than full-time player relevant to
that contribution?  If it is not relevant, that is, if you do not feel that
Salazar is comparable to Puckett why did you post this information?

>>I think you are just being argumentative.  
>> 
>I think you just like to say "I think you are just being argumentative."

You are being argumentative.  Why?

>Greg

rm


-- 
roger maynard                    
91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball