From: kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian)
Subject: Re: Expos Clinch! Wallach to Dodgers
Organization: Pitzer College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 21:22:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.193620.27863@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>If you are assessing performance after the fact then the 97%
>is a combination of talent + intangibles.  Can you separate the two?
>No.  
I was with you up to here, but...

>As for predicting performance, well, you can't seriously mean that
>you can predict performance at a 97% accuracy rate.

No, David never said that.  He said *talent* was 97% of the game, not 
stats.  No stathead worthy of the name would ever say stats could exactly 
describe talent.

>If you really think
>that your methods are more accurate than those of the common herd then
>why don't you hop on down to Vegas and get rich betting on baseball?  If
>you are concerned about sample size - bet on every game.  

1.  Well, for one thing I have a finite bank account (alas!)
2.  I must bet $6 to make $5 on even money propositions, so I have to hit 
over 55%, not 50%.
3.  Betting is an efficient market:  the statistical realities are already 
in the odds.  Your statement:

>Odds are calculated
>according to how bookies predict people will bet - not on the final score.

... is baloney.  The bookie adjusts the odds so that an even amount of money 
is on each side of the action.  That extra $1 I have to bet to make $5 is 
the bookie's profit (it's called "vigorish" or "the vig").

>Surely your scientific methods would give you the advantage over those
>who bet by gut feelings?  

Not at all.  The gut bettors are not those who drive the action (were it so, 
I could make tons of money betting each week against the Cowboys, who have a 
lot of rich fans;  same goes for the Niners).  When I lay a million on the 
Jays, the odds drop on them, going up on the Braves, and some other sharpie 
bets on them, since they are now a better bet.  (I.e., the price of betting 
on them has fallen.)


>Does OBP have anything to do with winning?  If it does you should figure
>on making some money out of this info.  But if your information on OBP
>does not correlate with how many games the team will win then it is useless
>information isn't it?
>
Well, let's see.  Top three teams in OBP hitting and allowed by their 
pitching in 1992 were:
		AL					NL
   Hitting		Pitching		Hitting		Pitching
1. Oakland		Milwaukee		Cincinnati	St. Louis 
2. Minnesota		Minnesota		Pittsburgh	Montreal 
3. Detroit		Toronto			St. Louis	Atlanta 
Combined records of these groups:
   261-225	 	278-208			269-217		268-218 
   .537			.572			.553		.551

In contrast, the bottom three were
		AL					NL
   Hitting		Pitching		Hitting		Pitching
14. California		Seattle		12.	San Fran	Phila.
13. Kansas City		Detroit		11.	Chicago		Houston
12. Boston		New York	10.	New York	New York
Records:
    217-269		215-271			222-264		223-263
    .447		.442			.457		.459

The effect looks pretty much symmetric:  being in the top three of OBP or (
low) OBP allowed typically means you finish about 6-11 games over .500;  
being in the bottom three in either means you usually finish 6-10 games 
out.  The Mets were 9 out doing both things wrong.  The aberrations here are 
Detroit, 3rd in OBP but 13 in OBP allowed, and the Cardinals, third in OBP 
and first in OBP allowed.  (Guess who I'm picking for the NL East next 
year?)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball