From: 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:26:01 GMT

In <3832@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>>>       Bonds:          48.6 + 5.1 = 53.7 marginal runs
>>>       Puckett:        25.2 + 0.3 = 25.5 marginal runs
>>>       Salazar:         4.5 - 1.8 =  2.7 marginal runs

>>Go one step further and tell me what percentage of each team's total offensive
>>production each player made.  That is the issue here.

>I thought you wanted to know total contribution.  The value of those 54 runs
>that Bonds contributed DOES NOT DEPEND on how many runs the rest of his team
>did or did not produce.  Barry's contribution can be accurately summarized as
>"about 54 more runs than they would have scored with an average player in his
>place".  What possible relevance is there in what fraction of the team's
>production this represents?  That's information about how good Bonds's team-
>mates were, not about Bonds himself.

It would tell us what percentage of a division-winning offence Bonds is
repsonsible for.  Likewise Puckett.  It would tell us who carried the 
biggest load, that is, it could be a measure of MVP.  And forget about 
guys like Griffey playing for bad teams.  Tell us what percentage of
the load was carried by Bonds or Puckett or the much maligned Joe Carter
as they drove towards their pennants.  It might not be a "true" indication 
of a players talent level but it would be more meaningful than RBI's and it
might be interesting.  How would you make such a calculation?
 
>How can you get a measure of individual value by dividing by what a bunch of
>other people did?  All that would tell you is how much better than the rest of
>the team these guys are, using your definition of 'better'.  Or, equivalently,
>how much worse than these guys the rest of the team was.

Yes but if we are talking about the "best" teams it might be interesting to
see how large the individual contributions were to the winning effort.

>>>Greg's original claim, that Puckett's stats are closer to Salazar's than they
>>>are to Bonds's, still holds true when you look at total contribution over the
>>>season.  Had Salazar played full-time, it would be even closer.
>>
>>Well then show us the percentage of the teams offensive production that each
>>each player ACTUALLY MADE!  

>Why?  I've already showed you the players total (offensive) value.  Who cares
>what percentage of the team offense that is?  The contribution is an absolute
>one, not a relative one.  Nobody is going to say "Well, the Brewers only won
>82 games, but Paul Molitor produced 42% of their offense, so we're giving the
>Brewers the pennant."  Contribution toward winning comes in increasing the
>chance of winning individual games, which comes from scoring as many runs as
>possible.  (And, of course, preventing as many as possible on defense.)

ok then what percentage of total LEAGUE production did the three players make?
This business of saying so many runs above average is skirting the issue. 
What was the average?  Lets add that in and then compare the three.

>>Furthermore I suggest that the number of players
>>whose MLV lies between Salazar and Puckett is FAR greater than the number of 
>>players between Bonds and Puckett.  

>Roughly double.

Double?  You say further down that there were only 18 or 20 players better
than Puckett in the AL.  Salazar is almost dead-on average by your reckoning.
Does this mean that there are only 54-60 players better than average in the 
AL assuming AL average is approximately the same as NL?

>>Bonds had outstanding stats and Puckett 
>>had very good stats.  They are both among the elite.  Salazar is totally 
>>average.

>My point is that, last year, Puckett was *not* among the elite.  He was about
>the 18th or 20th best player in the AL, but was only *half* as valuable as
>Bonds.  The ordinal ranking isn't important; it just shows that talent thins
>out as you get up into the elite classes.

The 18th or 20th could become #1.  And many teams don't even have a player
of that calibre.  Salazar's are a dime a dozen.  The fact that ordinal ranking
is not important works against your argument.

>>>Now, if you think that Barry Bonds's attitude costs his teams more than the
>>>difference between Kirby Puckett last year and Luis Salazar last year, you're
>>>welcome to believe that.  I see no reason to agree with you, though.
>>
>>No, I am saying that the sum of Bond's "attitude" + individual performance
>>COULD be less that the sum of Puckett's "attitude" + individual performance
>>when looked at as a percentage of team production as a whole.  

>And I still don't understand why you would look at it as a percentage of team
>production, rather than in absolute runs.  Total runs win pennants.  Percent
>of team production is just a measure of how unbalanced the team offense is.

Yes but it might be enlightening to find out what Minny's chances would have
been without Puckett and likewise for Bonds, Carter and Gant.

rm

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