From: dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:00:49 GMT
Organization: Factors of Ys, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.155847.9929@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

>In <3797@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>>He meant the context of those 195 hits, not the context of your comments.
>>As in, what *else* did Puckett do besides get 195 hits?  After all, Juan
>>Samuel had 191 hits in 1984 and was barely above average offensively.  Willie
>>Wilson had *230* hits in 1980, and wasn't nearly as valuable as Barry Bonds
>>was last year.  You need to know what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of
>>the story", and what Greg was calling "context".
>
>We are comparing the contributions made, to their respective teams over-all
>performances, by Puckett, who had 195 hits last year, and Salazar, who had 86.
>86 hits!  Now the "rest of the story" may be relevant if we are comparing
>195 hits to 150 in the context of the teams over-all performance but not 86.
>RC27 is only relevant if they had approximately the same amount of total
>RC in 91.  And they didn't.  91 to 39 isn't even close.  

RC/27 measures rate of production; RC measures total production.  Since this
discussion was originally about who is the *better* player, and by how much,
Greg used RC/27 as the natural measure, since it doesn't penalize or reward
a player for factors beyond his control, like how much playing time he gets.

However, if you want to talk about total contribution over the course of the
season, we can do that too.  It doesn't change the fact that you have to look
at both costs and benefits of each player's performance.  Just as you can't
tell how profitable a firm is by looking only at sales, you can't tell how
valuable a player is by looking only at his hits.  

>Of course Bonds statistics are better!  That is why I made the Bonds/Puckett
>comparison.  Did Bonds, with his better statistics, (and his questionable
>attitude), contribute more to his team's success than Puckett contributed
>to his?  The question would be meaningless if Bonds stats were not better. 

You seemed to be saying that the two were "comparable".  They aren't.  Greg
said that Puckett's statistics were closer to those of Luis Salazar than they
are to Barry Bonds.  He was right, whether you're talking rate of production
or total production.

If we use each player's batting average, OBP, and SLG to estimate the 
difference they would make in team run-scoring over the course of a season
on an average team, and then adjust for actual playing time, we get what's
called a "marginal lineup value" (MLV).  The units are "team runs above what
an average offensive player would have produced".  If we then add in stolen
base runs (at 0.3 runs per SB-2CS), we get an estimate of total offensive
contribution to the team run-scoring effort, above or below average.  For
1991, the relevant numbers are:

	Bonds:		48.6 + 5.1 = 53.7 marginal runs
	Puckett:	25.2 + 0.3 = 25.5 marginal runs
	Salazar:	 4.5 - 1.8 =  2.7 marginal runs

Greg's original claim, that Puckett's stats are closer to Salazar's than they
are to Bonds's, still holds true when you look at total contribution over the
season.  Had Salazar played full-time, it would be even closer.

Now, if you think that Barry Bonds's attitude costs his teams more than the
difference between Kirby Puckett last year and Luis Salazar last year, you're
welcome to believe that.  I see no reason to agree with you, though.

>The only time
>comparing RC27, for the purpose of determining total offensive contribution, 
>is really useful is when the players have roughly equivalent total RC's.  

But we were originally talking about who was better, not about "total offensive
contribution".  RC/27 is relevant (although I prefer other measures) any time
both players have enough plate appearances to give a little statistical
significance to their averages.

>And 
>Puckett and Salazar don't.  Not even close.  And I don't even know why I have
>to tell you this.

You have to tell me because you changed the subject, from "who is the better
player" to "who produced more total offense last season".


-- 
        David M. Tate        | "And that inverted Bowl we call The Dome
   dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu   |  Whereunder crawling coop'd we field and bat,
   Edward "Mike" Fitzgerald  |     Lift not your eyes to *it* for help--for it
     from "The Ruthaiyat"    |  Will drop the tow'ring fly upon your hat."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball