From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep02.161808.27587@brtph560.bnr.ca> psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes:
>Three anti-Fielders pummeling me at one time =8^) I'll respond to Ted,
>since he's the guy I've been dealing with most....

>In article <1992Sep2.135350.13730@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep02.131254.23869@brtph560.bnr.ca>
>psycho@brtpa25.bnr.ca (Paul Jezioranski) writes: 

>> >	1) You indicate each performers RBI vs. RISP, but there's no 
>> >	   quantification of the pitching quality. How do I know that the
>> >	   avg. ERA of the pitchers Fielder faced in these situations wasn't
>> >	   a half point lower than those Canseco faced.

>> How do we know it's not a half point higher?  

>	Exactly my point; we dont know, and it's pertinent info. We can't 
>	just "assume" the ERA difference is negligible like one fellow suggested
>	anymore than we can conclude that with 700 ML ball players, the 
>	difference between seventh best and best is negligible.

Well, now, I haven't seen a lot of teams changing pitchers in the fourth
inning just because Fielder's coming up.  For that matter, it doesn't 
happen all that often in the 8th or 9th, either.

Nor have I seen managers adjusting their rotations drastically for the 
Tigers.

If these things *had* been happening, don't you think we'd have heard about
it?  I find it hard to believe that Fielder has in fact had any benefit
from opposing pitchers, or faced anything particularly difficult, either.

We know of only a few cases where managers adjust their pitching staffs.
Fenway and Yankee are the two best-known.  So, given that there's no 
evidence, and it's otherwise highly unlikely that Fielder's had some 
strange (dis-)advantage in the pitchers he's faced, the burden of proof
is on *you* to disprove the relatively stable null hypothesis that 
Fielder faces about the same pitchers that everyone else does.

Besides, if the pitchers are so tough, how come the hitters ahead of
Fielder hit so well, too?

>> And if you start adding
>> run-scoring ability in with run-driving-in ability, the number is much larger
>> than seven.  And if you start adding in defensive ability, the number is
>> larger yet. 

>	You're right about defense and running ability, but I was solely 
>	arguing RBI ability.

Great.  Now argue that there is such a thing.  Seems to me that Fielder's
"RBI ability" is in fact composed of his power hitting (great in 90, good
in 91, mediocre this year) plus the on-base ability of the guys ahead of 
him.  He wouldn't have 110 RBI playing for the Mets...

>> >	2) You've got to be in the lineup to get RBIs. Fielder is in more often
>> >	   than Canseco.

>> But less often than Ripken.  And this season, Fielder's hardly been a model
>> of durability.

>	True, but again, who's currently leading in RBIs? Unless my Sunday
>	paper had a typo, Fielder was the only ML player currently with more
>	than 100 RBI.

Again, so what?  He's also close to leading the league in outs.  Those RBI
are expensive.

>> >	3) Maybe six teams had better RBI men than the Tigers, but they have 
>> >	   led the league in runs scored the past two or three years. That's
>> >	   what really counts.

>> But that's as much because of Whitaker, Phillips, and Tettleton (all better
>> players than Fielder).  And the difference between Detroit's home stadium
>> and Oakland's -- Oakland scored more runs on the road last year than did
>> the Tigers.  As did Milwaukee and Texas.

>	I think you're dreaming if you think any of those three players could
>	outperform Fielder at the plate; 

Those players *do* outperform him at the plate.  They do more things to
give their team runs, and they use up fewer outs.  They hit, they walk, 
they hit for a little power, too.

>even with three Rickey Hendersons batting in front of them. 

Maybe it's more important to *have* the three Rickeys!  There are about
20 players in the league who, batting in Fielder's slot, would have his
RBI numbers -- or would be helping the Tigers at least as much.

>	The point about Tiger Stadium is good and true. Do you have the stats
>	on opponents' runs scored at Tiger Stadium?

>> It's winning games that counts -- and in terms of winning games, 
>> Fielder wasn't even the most valuable player on his team, much less the AL.

>	I disagree, but I guess that's axiomatic.

Axiomatic?  I'd say it was open to debate.  And from where I'm sitting,
the debate isn't exactly going your way.  All those outs HURT the 
Tigers.  Each one robs the team of about surplus plate appearances.  


Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball