From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: NLCS Game #5 at 9:41
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:58:09 GMT

In article <7519@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.032828.9604@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>>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.

No, it doesn't.  What people have said is that there are two components
to scoring runs -- getting runners on base, and advancing them.  Getting
runners on base is best meaured by OBP, not BA.  Batting average is bad
because it simply ignores a huge portion of the time people get on base.

The problem you're arguing about has to do with runner advancement --
which relates to SLG, not OBP.  But in SLG, walks are ignored, unfortunately.

>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.

No stat tells you "how, when, or why."  They tell you "How Many" or "How
Often."  That's what stats do.  Maybe the RBIs came in a blowout?  Maybe
the hits came with two outs and nobody on base?  The assumption --
tested empirically -- is that over the course of a year, these things will 
balance out.

>What Bonds' walks 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.  As had been the 
>case up until Sunday night, Bonds was collecting walks - his OBP must have been
>decent - the Braves were glad to let him have them and it contributed in no way
>to the teams effort.

Of course the walks contributed to the team's effort!  They put extra 
runners on base to be driven in!  If Jeff King (he is batting behind
Bonds, right?) fails to deliver, that means *he* sucks, not that Bonds
does.  If King had it a home run, does that somehow mean Bonds is a great
player because he scored a run and contributed more "directly?"  Even
though Bonds did the same thing?

If the protection thing were true, then it stands to reason we'd see
large discrepancies between the number of walks a player gets with and
without a good hitter behind them.  But it doesn't happen -- except
intentional walks, which aren't that common.  (Yes, Barry Bonds walked
more this year than in the past.  He ALSO hit for a higher average and
with more power.  That proves he had a good year, not that he was
"pitched around.")

>>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!

No it doesn't.  The walk doesn't produce "no run."  The walk produces
another base runner, and an equal chance for 1 run and a greater chance
for more than 1 run.  

Your argument is silly.  It's like arguing that a single with a slow
runner (or Lonnie Smith :)) on second base is worthless because the runner 
only got to third, rather than scoring.  Therefore, the batter might as
well have gotten out.

>PSG


-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball