From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Offense, Defense, and the Transmutation of Egalitarian Society
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 18:16:23 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger "I am not Spock" Maynard) writes:
: In <1992Dec22.064548.1964@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
: >Yes, preventing runs and scoring runs is equally important.  But I'm not sure
: >that's the same thing.  If you change the rules of baseball, and make it
: >much harder to prevent runs, doesn't offense become more important and
: >defense less so?
: nope.  You are making the typical stathead error.  The object of the game
: is not to score as many runs as possible - that is the object of the 
: offense.  The object of the whole team is to score more runs than the
: other team.

Of course, Greg is discussing a point raised by Dr. Dave, Stathead Supreme,
Keeper of the Sacred Formulae, whose very median I am not worthy to
calculate, etc., etc. ;-)

So what's the "typical stathead error", Roger? Who's making it? Do you
realize you're actually supporting Dave's arguments, you miserable cretin?
As the rest of the post shows, you're not stupid, but you're certainly
obnoxious.

I think we need a term for all those who disdain statistics and those who
use them even though they themselves give every impression of being
unwilling if not incapable of understanding them. How about "flat-ballers"?

: >The ultimate example seems to me to be a batting cage contest.  There is
: >no defense, so it can't possibly be 50% of the game.  And if you add a
: >slo-pitch pitcher, does that automatically make defense 50% of the game. 
: If there is no defense then there is no analogy.  If the slo-pitch pitcher
: is trying to prevent you from scoring runs then defense has become just
: as important as offense - 50 -50.

Here, amazingly enough, Roger is dead on the money. Another way to think of
it is that the contributions of your offense and the other team's defense
(including pitching) are inextricably bound together. Since their offense
contributes 50% to the outcome of the game, your defense must also.
   
: >If you have a game in which raising the talent of your offense by 10%
: >is more beneficial than raising the talent of your defense by 50%, I
: >don't think there's a 50-50 split.
: Raising the talent of your offense only means that you are coming closer
: to realizing the maximum contribution your offense can make to winning -
: which is still only 50%.

Greg has a good point here, qualified by what looks to be an awfully big if.
The best measure of offensive and defensive performance (for a team) is
probably runs scored and runs allowed. By that, I'd say that raising the
performance level of your team by 50% defensively would mean that you'd
allow 50% fewer runs. That would be a bigger effect on your winning
percentage than scoring 10% more runs. I don't think the conditional you
posit is valid for real baseball, and the predictive power of the
Pythagorean formula is evidence that it isn't. 

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

How do you get a British car to stop leaking oil?  Simple.  Drain out all the
oil and drive the car around the block.  This will teach the engine what
happens when the oil leaks out, and it will henceforth make every effort to
hold it in.
	- Charlie Rockwell, Rockwell Motor Sport