From: hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu (Harold_Brooks)
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Organization: NSSL
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.105123.10657@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.013519.8911@panix.com>, spira@panix.com (Greg
>"Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>> In <1992Sep02.204409.2123@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul
>Jezioranski) writes: 
>> >Any statistic you can come up with is bound to be affected by
>countless "what
>> >ifs". Keep it simple.
>> 
>> We do.
>> 
>>  Games played, runs scored, hits, walks, RBI, etc. (i.e.
>> >the basics) give a solid idea of hitting performance.
>> 
>> No, they don't.
>> 
>> And we can keep it simple by eliminating a lot of these.
>> 
>> Leave us with PAs, SLG, OBP and I'll let you eliminate all the rest.
>> 
>> Is that simple enough for you?
>> 
>
>Sure. Simply idiotic. An example:
>
>	Rudy Fafoofnik: 680 Plate appearances, 1.000 SLG, 1.000 OBP
>	
>......	but he scored zero runs because he hit 680 two out singles and the guy
>	behind him struck out 680 times.

So that you're going to claim Rudy's not a good player because his teammates
didn't do anything.  Oh, brother.

>
>Sure you can draw a "likely" conclusion from just those three stats, but
>you can draw a better conclusion from what the player himself did.
>Singles, doubles, triples, homers, runs scored, walks, at bats, and RBI
>give a better than "likely" conclusion of the player's value to the
>team, and you can calculate your three numbers from these stats. My
>contention is that adding external dependencies (such as who and how
>many were in scoring position, who was pitching, etc) only complicates
>things and leads people to draw errant conclusions like "if Jose was in
>his place, he'd have 5000 RBI". But I guess that's most of the
>attraction of all these stats. 

I certainly agree that we should eliminate the external dependencies.
Unless you do that, your conclusions are always suspect.

Of course RBIs includes the external dependency of having runners on base
(with the exception of home runs).  To take your example--if instead of 
hitting 680 2-out singles with no one on, Rudy hit 680 2-out singles with
a man on third, he'd have 680 RBIs.  He didn't do anything different.  
His teammates did.  You're going to change your evaluation of Rudy 
because of something his teammates did, because of something he didn't 
have any effect on. 

The statistically-oriented netters aren't trying to complicate things.
We're trying to simplify things by looking at what individuals do.  We 
look at how many chances they had to do something and what they did with
them.  We distrust small sample sizes and we try to eliminate the 
complicating external dependencies that cloud issues.  In 1985, Tommy 
Herr drove in 110 runs, ~2 times the number he had driven in in 1984.
He drove in approximately the same percentage of men from third base
each year and the same percentage from second and first.  The big 
difference was he batted third in 1985 and had ~2 times the number of
men on base when he came to the plate.  Herr changed only a little from
1984 to 1985, but the circumstances in which he batted changed 
tremendously.  Suddenly, he drives in 110 runs.  If he had driven in 
runners at the same rate as he had in 1984, he still would have had 
~100 RBIs.  By looking only at Herr's RBIs and ignoring the circumstances
in which he got them, you are "adding external dependencies...[which]
only complicates things and leads people to draw errant conclusions like" 
Tommy Herr suddenly became a great RBI man in 1985.

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks                    hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory/CIMMS (Norman, OK)
Andres Galarraga (Through 2 September)  .242 BA  .376 SLG  .279 OBA
27 H from .300  4 H from .250  8 HBP  9 BB    
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball