From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: NLCS Game #5 at 9:41
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:14:54 GMT
 UCP> <1992Oct12.032828.9604@Princeton.EDU><7519@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: psg+@pitt.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 16:28:30 GMT

In article <7519@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, Paul S Galvanek writes:

> In article <1992Oct12.032828.9604@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>>Paul Galvanek writes: (Please keep attributions straight)
>>
>>>Once again we see that a WALK is definitely not as vaulable as a HIT.
>>
>>Once again, we see people setting up straw men.  Nobody ever said it was, 
>>unless there's a man on first and he's slow.

> With all due respect folks, no one may have used the exact wording
> but, many here have argued that OBP is a more important stat that
> batting average, or rbisetc and no matter how you slice it that
> argument - OBP > BA - boils down to walks are as important as hits.

This is not the case.  Walks are as important as hits in OBP, but OBP
isn't the *only* important offensive statistic.  If you rate players by
OPS, or RC/27, or MLV, walks and hits make the same contribution to the
on-base portion of the stat, but singles are more important in the SLG
or advancement portion.

If you try to predict a team's offense from walks alone, you will have a
very large expected error.  If you predict it from BA alone, you will
have a smaller expected error; thus BA is more important than walks.  If
combine these two meaningful numbers to get OBP, the expected error is
still smaller; thus OBP is more important than BA.

And you can continue this.  SLG is still a better predictor than OBP,
and thus it is a more important statistic.  (One point of OBP is more
important than one point of SLG, but the range of SLG is larger).  And
if you combine *these* two meaningful numbers to get OBP*SLG or Runs
Created, you have a very good measure of team offense; most of the
remaining error is due to luck.

Now, to measure an individual player's value, you want to measure his
contribution to the team totals.  A player's OBP measures his
contribution to the team's OBP, while his BA measures his contribution
to the team's BA.  A player's OPS measures his contribution to the teams
OBP*SLG, and his MLV measures his contribution to the team's RC; this
makes these two excellent individiual measures.

> Simply not true!  Walks CAN be as vauluable as hits but that depends on the 
> circumstances.  And since a cummulative number like OBP tells you nothing
> about how, when or why a walk was obtained it is an utterly meaningless stat
> by itself.

"Utterly meaningless" is much too strong here.  OBP or OPS gives a
certain average value for a walk; some walks are more important than
others.  Over a season, this average value will be close to correct.

And you can say the same things about virtually any statistic.  Runs
scored and RBI tell you nothing about how much you contributed to the
run, or how important it is.  You can score a run by reaching on a
forceout if the next batter hits a homer, or by hitting a homer with two
out and nobody on.  You can drive in a run by hitting a sacrifice fly in
the bottom of the ninth with your team trailing by four, or by hitting a
double to drive in the winning run from first.

> What Bonds' walk(s) prove IMHO is that with out the proper person
> hitting behind you (oh that nasty protection thing again) a walk can
> be as equally vaulable to the pitcher, and some times more so, as it
> is to a hitter.

If the walk is more valuable to the pitcher, you will get walked
intentionally.  This is a clear effect of protection; you won't draw
intentional walks with Cecil Fielder on deck.

>>
>>But then again, it's infinitely better than an out.
>>

> Why is it?  With a man on third a out the walk and the out produce exactly
> the same result - NO RUN!

That should read, "No run yet."  Would you rather have the inning over,
with Jeff King (.271 OBP) leading off the next inning, or runners on
first and third with two out, and King at bat?  The difference is about
half a run.

King shouldn't be batting behind Bonds, but even though he is, there's a
better than .200 chance he will get a hit, driving in at least one run
and continuing the inning.  And he might hit a double, producing as many
runs as Bonds could with a homer, while leaving a runner in scoring
position for someone else.  Or he could hit a homer, which he did do 14
times last year; that puts three runs on the scoreboard, something Bonds
couldn't do by himself.

And that's with two out.  With none or one out, the walk is much more
likely to become a run, and there are more hitters with a chance to
drive in the runner from third after the walk.  (With one out, a walk
and a sacrifice fly are about equally valuable; with none out, the walk
is much better.)

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball