From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: More fuel for the Stats fire
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:19:04 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853

In article <54615@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> poutsmaj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown) writes:
>
>With this as their motto, they attempted to describe everything they saw
>in terms of mathematics.  Apparantly this is the motto of many of the netters
>here as they try to reduce all of a baseball player's talents into one,
>easily understandable parameter (ave, obp, ops, rc, etc).

I swore off swearing at people for a while, but this post tempts me...
What gives you the right to jump in here, assign ridiculous beliefs to
"many of the netters", and then flame them for it?  At least have the
guts to name names.

>It is always
>important to keep in mind, however, that statistics only reflect what a
>player has done and not what he will do (or is capable of doing).  A classic
>example of this is Kirby Puckett.  When Kirby first came into the league
>in 1984, he was an opposite field-singles hitter.  His batting average was
>about .280 and his obp and slg were not much better.  Therefore, if I would 
>that KP would hit 30 HR and bat over .330, everyone would have thought I was
>crazy.

Get your facts straight.  True, he didn't have much power.  But he hit
.296 his rookie year.  And he hardly walks any more often now than he
did back then!  (In 1985 he walked 41 times.  He only recently beat
that total in 1990.)

He was also only 23.  While you don't expect even a young player to
jump from 4 HR to 31 HR, you *do* expect improvement.  Basically,
Kirby's batting average and OBP are right in line with the stats he
put up his first two years.  His power isn't, but did *anybody*
predict an explosion like that?  Even the scouts?  Find me even *one*
scouting report from 1985 saying "Puckett is going to hit 30 HR some
day".  More likely, the scouts wrote him off as a power threat from
day one, merely on the basis of his (lack of) height.

>This is a serious problem with
>statistics:  they don't really show player potential.  

Nobody evaluates players purely on their stats.  Though Nelson Lu
sometimes looks like he does...  (Sorry, Nelson, but it does look that
way.)

>Therefore, when I see questions like "Who would want Wade Boggs?", all I 
>can think is "Who wouldn't?"  Sure this year is a down year for him (so far)
>but his numbers in the first half in no way predict what he will do in the
>second.

Ummm...  This is a different question.  Matt, the author of the "Who
would want Wade Boggs?"  statement, is as anti-stat as they come.
Aren't you, Matt?  He *certainly* isn't evaluating Boggs solely on the
basis of his first-half stats.  (I doubt Matt even knows what they
are, though I might be wrong there.)

>I still see a player who strikes out very rarely and is still 
>capable of hitting the ball very well, especially with the green monster in
>left to hit it off of.  Also, what effect will putting glasses on him have?
>I don't think that his first half OPS is capable of predicting such things.

I see an aging batter with excellent bat control who doesn't use it to
his team's advantage (he has never learned to hit behind runners
effectively).  You yourself bring up the most important point.  He
traditionally hits far better in Fenway than on the road.  But Matt
and I were discussing a trade.  And how many teams have small foul
territory and a Green Monster in LF?

Toss into the mix the fact that Boggs will be a free agent after this
year.  "Who would want Boggs?" is not a comment on the first half of
this year.  It is a comment on a lot of other factors that you choose
to ignore.  None of the stat-people are particularly concerned about
Boggs' poor first-half showing.  I'm certainly not saying anything
about Boggs that I wasn't saying six months ago.  *YOU* seem to be
concerned that he's hitting only .270.  But your total lack of a clue
is no excuse for whipping us...

>The fact that stats can't predict what will happen in the future is why
>teams have scouts and coaches to evalute players' talents.  True it is
>a subjective practice, but it is the only way it can really be done.

And while the stats will mislead you one time in ten, scouts never
make mistakes....  I've heard that one before!

You asked for a flame and you got one.  Next time find out more before
you start a flame war.

-Valentine
-- 
Quantrill gets his shot at the bigs.... 	tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball