From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: joe carter and others
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: rec
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:23:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.191446.28413@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Dec13.172315.19846@Princeton.EDU> roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec13.161023.24184@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>> If you really truly
>>>think you have figured it out why aren't you down in Vegas making yourself
>>>a rich man?

>>Because the bookmakers do it, too.  Any other questions, Brighteyes?

>The bookies set the spread initially but the odds shift according to the 
>action.  I doubt very much that most of the people that bet on baseball 
>games are statheads. (Brighteyes?!?)

Well, I haven't heard of many odds that shifted to where statistically
one team would become a bargain.  Nor, for that matter, have I heard of 
pre-season odds shifting much at all in the month that they're valid,
except in reaction to trades, injuries, etc.

>>>>As one AL executive said, "Toronto got rid of some problem players, but they
>>>>picked up Joe Carter and Devon White, who are two of the most selfish players
>>>>in the game."

>>>I have ever seen where White and Carter have been described as selfish. 

>>Then you haven't read a.s.b much, which, given your postings, is not
>>surprising.  On the other hand, you haven't read Bill James and lots of
>>other writers, either.

>I have been reading James since he talked about "some guy named Johnson".
>Unlike yourself, however, I don't necessarily believe everything that I 
>read... 

Irrelevant.  You said you'd never seen any other description.  Believing
wasn't the issue.

>>>Henderson has been described as such time and time again.  (maybe you could
>>>compile statistics on who is reportedly the most selfish player in the game.)

>>Gee, and then we could compile stats on which writers borrow the most from 
>>other writers.  

>>Now, make up your mind.  Do reports count, or don't they?  

>You have to consider the source.  This could be tough for someone like you
>who believes all that he reads...

Do you honestly think that I believe your postings?  C;mon...

>>>That is because you cannot understand what you see with your own eyes.  You
>>>have abstracted yourself right out of reality pal.  If you cannot tell 
>>>whether a player is any good without consulting statistics (that only 
>>>measure part of a players contribution to winning) I don't see how you
>>>could possibly enjoy watching a game at any but the most simplistic rah-
>>>rah level.

>>Well, what are the parts of Alomar's game that YOU see with your own eyes,
>>that don't show up in the stats, but that contribute to winning?  I have
>>news for you: an ugly DP pivot contributes just as much as a pretty one,
>>assuming the play gets made both times.  

>Telling John Olerud where to position himself for one thing.  Having the 

Did this make Olerud a better fielder?  Tell me how you know.  

>smarts to know where to throw the ball.  Lots of stuff.

Sorry, but the stats *will* show if he made the right throw.  If it
didn't result in an out, it can't have been *that* good a throw -- and if it
did, he gets an assist.  

>>>Bond's contract was what?  43 million?  Carter's was around 20.

>>For six years????????  Before you post anymore, how about a short course
>>in long division?>

>Blue Jay policy is not to go beyond 3 years in their contracts with players.
>Because of this policy it really doesn't matter how much they pay the player
>a year because players these days look at the size of the total package.

Now, how do you know that?  Also, what do you mean that it doesn't matter?
If you get an extra year's value for your money, or an extra year to pay
out, the terms of the contract *do* matter, even holding cost constant.

>>>>Jesse Barfield is out there, and if he passes a team physical, could probably
>>>>be had for one eighth of Carter's salary.  At most.  Even if he posts a line
>>>>like .235/.290/.400, that's not much worse than Carter, and they would still

>>>You are assuming that "the line" measures a player's contribution.  It doesn't.

>>He assumes no such thing.  He assumes that it *indicates* it.

>You mean that the line doesn't measure the performance?  Are there perhaps other
>factors to consider?  Factors that can't be measured?

If you can't measure them, how can you consider them?

But the issue of past performance is only relevant for one reason, anyway:
to *predict* future performance.  And that can only be done within a certain
tolerance.  After all, Joe Carter could drop dead in spring training, too!

Yes, there are other factors to consider.  If Cito and Jesse don't get 
along well, for instance, and you *know* this, it's an issue.

But YOU, Roger Maynard, do NOT know this.  You only know what you 
read in the papers, and the reporters usually don't know either.

>>It does.  And always has.  Replace a player with a bad line with a player
>>with a good line, and your team will improve far more often than not.
>>Now, who's shutting his eyes to reality here?

>You can only prove that if all things are equal.  And of course all things
>never are.  

Prove?  Who said anything about proof?  I was talking about counting.  
Take the games where one player or another plays, and compare their 
lines and the games the team won each time.  If you wish, hold constant
other factors, e.g., pitching, home park, etc.  If you're at all familiar
with multiple regression technique, you will know that it's NOT true that 
you need to hold all other things constant.  

>How can you prove to me that replacing Candy Maldonado with
>"I'm just as good as Willie Mays" will produce a better club?  In fact,
>can you prove that the Jays would have won last year with Bonds in left
>instead of Maldonado?  No you can't - but we do know for sure that with
>Maldonado in left that Toronto won.  Who would you have rather had on your
>team last year?

Bonds.  Now, I know you don't believe in simulations or statistical 
methods or anything like that, mainly because they don't fit your prejudices,
but if you can show me how Bonds might possibly have hurt the team, I'd
like you to tell me about it.   

>>>Barfield sucks bigtime.  Comparing him to Carter shows us all just how flawed
>>>your system is.

>>>I don't think there is any doubt that next year Maddux will be the ace of the
>>>WS winning staff.

>>Why don't you go to Vegas, then, and get rich?

>Never gambled much have you?  Betting on Atlanta to win next year ain't
>gonna make you rich...

If it's a sure thing, the way you say, it won't make you any poorer.  
How about it?  Taken out a loan yet?

>>Well, some of us enjoy the game more when the team wins.  And Carter was
>>*not* the big reason that team won.  

>Well if you can say this then I guess you are prepared to say just how 
>important Carter was to winning the WS.  How important was he?

As important as several other players were.  More important than some. 
Not the only reason by a long shot.  

>>And, once again, your stupid, snotty remarks about "tabulating statistics"
>>miss the point entirely: baseball executives make their decisions based 
>>on such data, too, not on how you get off in the stands.  Unfortunately
>>they make a very bad job of it, partly due to prejudices about what makes
>>a good ballplayer.  Too bad that so few of them had the insight of Branch
>>Rickey.

>Ah, the legend of Branch Rickey...one of these days I just might research
>some of Mr. Rickeys trades...

There were some fine ones.  He also invented the farm system, and built 
three of the finest such systems.  He was good at evaluating young players,
and used the following checklist: hit, run, throw, field, hit for power.
He also invented OBP, and used it for evaluation.  He didn't care much
for "intangibles," though he didn't like players of dubious morals.

As for his record, he created the St. Louis club that won five pennants 
in 1926-34, the 1947-56 Dodgers, and finally the Pirates who improved from
all-time pits in his first years there to the WS winners of 1960.

>Statistics are good second-hand "indicators" of performance for those of us
>who are not close enough to the action to see just what the hell is going 
>on.

Then start using them, because you have never given any of us the slightest
indication (no, bluter doesn't count) that you know what's going on.
After all, some GM's don't, either, and they're closer than you.  You
have no idea how players relate to one another; you don't know what 
effect the "intangibles" have; and you certainly haven't given us much
indication that your observational skills are anything special.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball