From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:15:56 GMT
Organization: Boo!

In <1992Jul26.032220.13801@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

>In <1992Jul25.221458.15663@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>>In <1992Jul25.184843.6724@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

>>>In <1992Jul25.164618.8657@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg Spira) writes:

>>>>The problem in this case, of course, is that Puckett's individual statistics
>>>>are much closer to Luis Salazar's individual statistics the last few years 
>>>>than Barry Bonds' individual statistics (though, obviously, that won't be
>>>>the case this year).  

>>>>        RC27 '90    RC27 '91
>>>>Puck      5.35        4.78
>>>>Salaz     3.57        3.77
>>>>Bonds     9.36        8.66

>>>This is the typical example of how some people abuse statistics.

>>No.  

>Yes.  And I should have said "misuse" not "abuse".  Perhaps I was 
>anticipating the responses.

No, Roger, you're the one who continues to misuse statistics.

>>>Puckett had 195 hits in '91.  This is more than Salazar's output for
>>>'90 and '91 combined. 

>>Aha! Here we have a good example of how some people abuse statistics!
>>No context whatsoever.  Just some numbers with no real meaning by
>>themselves thrown out.

>The context is how much a player has contributed to the team's quest for
>the WC.  This is quite clear if you have been reading my posts.  I think 
>that Puckett's 195 hits were a significant contribution to that quest.  I
>don't see how Salazar's RC is relevent in that context.

I don't see how the fact that Puckett had a lot of hits is anything but
meaningless.  Counting stats don't provide you with an accurate measure
of how well a player performed.  Statistics are utterly meaningless without
context, and counting statistics, by themselves, don't have any context.
And even if you put the number of hits into context by using batting average,
batting average itself is a poor measure of offensive productivity.
  
  If you think that
>Salazar and Puckett are comparable in value to their teams based on the 
>RC27 statistic I am not going to argue with you.  If you are not saying 
>that they are comparable then I am not quite sure what your point is.

What I am saying is this:  If you replaced Kirby Puckett in the Twins   
everyday lineup with Luis Salazar during '90-'91, the loss in offense
would be smaller than the gain of offense you would see if you replaced
Puckett with Barry Bonds.  

>>I'm going to have to send the Society Against The Abuse of Statistics
>>after Roger.  (That's SATAS in shortened form)   

>What is the point of this?
> 
The point of this is to try to explain to you that YOU are the one who
misuses and abuses statistics.  You are the one who throws random numbers
out into the air.  You are the one who doesn't take context into account.
The so-called stat-heads use statistics properly, with thought and care.
When you choose to use statistics, you do not.  You continue to trot out
"number of rings" and "Alfredo Griffin's Range from the 1992 GABSB"
without showing any sign that you understand that these numbers don't
mean anything unless they are used in context. 

Using the fact that "Puckett had more hits in one year than Salazar had
in the two years combined" as any kind of an argument is ludicrous.  The
major thing that tells you is that Puckett had more playing time and that
Puckett was probably better at getting hits.  Neither is particularly    
helpful in evaluating' each players' performance.  You need to know playing
time, what kind of hits all those hits were, walk totals, stolen bases and
caught stealing, park factors, etc.  Without these things - all of which
RC/27 takes into account - the number is just a number, signifying nothing.
I don't claim that RC/27 is a perfect stat - there is no such thing - but
it gives you a reasonable idea of player performance because it places what
the player does in context.

The other point of this is that I am seriously thinking about starting
such a group to educate people about the use of statistics and to point
out gross misuse wherever it occurs.  Too many people in the media and
in politics throw out statistics that worse then meaningless, and people
who don't know any better but into them and make judgements based on
such misinformation.  I have no idea how to accomplish what I want to
accomplish, but the dangers of the increasing misuse of statistics are
great, and I am serious about trying to doing something.  If anybody has
any ideas, please e-mail me.

>>I didn't say exactly that.  I said that "Puckett's individual statistics
>>are much closer to Luis Salazar's individual statistics than Barry Bonds'
>>individual statistics."  Since I used RC27, I was obviously referring to
>>their rate of offensive production.  Obviously, Puckett has had more at-bats
>>than Salazar, and his total contribution would be higher if you rated by
>>a total rather than a rate based stat.  But the fact remains that Puckett's
>>rate of offensive production was closer to Salazar's rate than Bonds rate.
>>And while Salazar was not a full time player, he did have 785 plate
>>appearances during '90 and '91, and he was not a platoon player, so his
>>stats are quite legitimate.

>I was talking about the contribution two stars have each made to their team's
>quest for the WC.  How is the RC27 of a less than full-time player relevant to
>that contribution?  If it is not relevant, that is, if you do not feel that
>Salazar is comparable to Puckett why did you post this information?

Salazar was quite comparable to Puckett*.  How much a team plays a player is
not my concern; I don't judge a player perf by his total stats because he does
not control his playing time.  All I care about is his rate of play.  In
some cases, a part-timer's rate of play is higher than it should be because
he is used only in situations that hide his weaknesses.  In those cases, it
would not be fair to compare a part-timer to a full-timer without making
adjustments.  Salazar is not one of those cases though; there is no real
problem comparing his production with Kirby's.

(* = during this period)

The whole point was that your post said that everybody knows Bonds is
better than Salazar, but what about two players closer in ability like
Bonds and Puckett?  In fact, though, during '90-'91, Salazar and Puckett's
contributions per appearance were far more comparable than Bonds and
Puckett's.
 
>>>I think you are just being argumentative.  
>>> 
>>I think you just like to say "I think you are just being argumentative."

>You are being argumentative.  Why?

No.  I believe that the only reason you post stuff is so that you can
say "You are being argumentative."  Or so you can mention the word rings.

Greg 

P.S. - Thanks for not copying my signature.  
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here)