From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics (was Re: The Monthly Cecil Fielder Thread
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:00:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.175424.9344@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Sep3.005752.13903@midway.uchicago.edu> nss3@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Noel Steere) writes:

>>you postulate above).  I mean, who would you rather have at the plate
>>with the bases loaded, Frank Thomas or Pat Tabler (Tabler is something
>>like 50-for-102 in that specific situation)?  I'll give you one guess
>>(two if you guess Tabler :-)).

>Why not Tabler?  Is 50-102 (or whatever) not a big enough sample size?

No, not really, especially when you consider that there are lots of 
major leaguers, and we've tested *all* of them for bases-loaded 
performance -- i.e., the odds that *one* ofthem would do much better
than expected should rise as N (of players) increases.  

Also, we don't relaly have a model for his performance with bases loaded. 
Why isn't he as good with 2nd and 3rd?  If there were an effect, you'd
expect it to rub off on similar situations, wouldn't you? 

Finally, I bet  Frank Thomas is pretty close, anyway, esp. when you
cxount the walks.  He's likely to get a walk and drive in a run...

>>Now, if a batter's ability doesn't change from situation to situation,
>>why would a statistic that largely depends on what the situation is

>A batter's ability will not change from situation to situation but his
>capability does change.  Some hitters derive greater advantage from a
>drawn in infield, or a first baseman anchored to the bag or the knowledge
>that all pitches will be in the strike zone than other batters.  In 
>certain situations then some batters are likely to increase their production
>at a greater rate than others in the same situation.

Can you predict which ones these are?  It won't do to findthe ones who
do best in situation X and then come up with some reason afterward; there
are simply too many possible reasons.  Only if you have a model (slap
hitters are better, homer hitters are worse, whatever) can we test and see
whether there's something to it.

Which brings me back to Tabler: what is it about him?  DOn't most of these
things obtain with 2nd and 3rd?  

>>things: The team's on-base percentage (or, how well the team gets on
>>base without making an out), and the team's slugging percentage (or,
>>how well the team moves runners over without making an out).  This
>>works well for any season you can mention; not perfectly, mind you,
>>but well enough to believe that there's a strong correlation between
>>OBP and SLG on the one hand, and scoring runs on the other.

>Using the same logic I can tell you that there is a strong corelation
>between RBI's and runs scored...

Only because RBI are simply an accounting of runs scored, nothing else.
That is to say, in the book, they *are* runs scored (at the team level)
minus a few funny ones.  OBP and SLG aren't runs, but they correlate
highly.  

In other words, you are NOT using the same logic.  You are showing that
two idfferent accountings of the same phenomenon correlate highly, which 
they'd better unless one accounting is very bad.  We're comparing 
correlations between an observed effect and a hypothesized cause.

>>So, if we take as givens:

>>1) The talent in each league is roughly equal, so no one batter will
>>have a significantly easier/harder time hitting than any other batter.

>>2) A batter's ability is not affected by the situation (i.e., stuff
>>like "how many men are on").

>The batter's ability is not the issue here.  His capability is and as I said
>above the batter's capability IS situation-dependent.

Again, how and why?  Give us some examples that we can test.

>>3) OBP and SLG give us a good idea how many runs a team will score.

>>American League?  Also, can you see why some Netters claim that there
>>are at least 20-40 players that would help the Tigers score runs more
>>than Fielder?  Incidentally, here's a list of the obvious ones
>>(OBP+SLG > .850 > .784 = Fielder's OBP+SLG):

>RBI's are strongly corelated with runs scored.  Since we are trying to measure
>an individual's participation in the total runs scored by the team (and not the
>player's ability) RBI's are a strong indicator of how many runs scored an
>individual participated in. 

Wrong.  They are a *lousy* indicator of that.  Consider the following
sequence: 
--Single
--force out, 5-4
--homer  

Player 2 gets a run scored, even though he *hurt* his team.  Player 1
was the one who "participated," but he gets nothing.  There are many 
similar situations with RBI.  RBI assigns "participation" points 
very poorly; the hitter who advances the runner (often essential)
gets screwed.  They are a poor indication of individual participation
because they do not adequately account for the situation that allowed
the hitter to get an RBI opportunity.

> How many of the player's on this list would have
>as many RBI's (or participated in as many runs scored) as Cecil has if they
>were batting in his place? 

Many of them.  But that's not important, as baseball is a team game.
The question is: how many more runs would the Tigers score with these
guys batting in Fielder's place?

Do it any way you wish; run a simulation or just calculate Team RC or LW
or whatever.  Use Dr. Dave's MLV.  You'll see that Fielder doesn't
do so well.  

(Heck, just swap Fielder and Tettleton in the lineup!  Tettleton has
the same BA, the same SLG, and 40 more walks.  Fielder would have *more*
RBI.)

[list deleted]
>>I hope I've made a convincing argument, and I hope you'll reconsider
>>your estimation of Cecil Fielder.  This article went much longer than

>I think it has become trendy to knock Fielder.  Fielder is a good ball
>player.  He may not be the best but he is far from the worst.  He is
>consistent and he comes to play.  He is a valuable part of Detroit's
>offense.  

Tied for 4th this year with Fryman.  Philips, Whitaker, and Tettleton
are the ones who make the noise.  Deer, too, of course, though he's
been hurt a lot.

>>I anticipated, but that's probably because I'm venting a lot of
>>pent-up frustration at the idiots in the media who shower guys like
>>Fielder, George Bell, and Andre Dawson with praises but largely ignore
>>guys like Lou Whitaker or take a dim view to guys like Barry Bonds or
>>Frank Thomas because "they take too many walks, and that doesn't help
>>the team win."  Yeah, right.  Frank Thomas so much as admitted that he

>When has this been said?  I have never heard a "mediot" say that taking
>walks doesn't help a team win. 

They say everything but.  Listen to Ray Knight go on about Eddie 
Murray or Cecil Fielder.  "His job is to knock in runs and he does that
so well."  "It's just not an all-star game without Big Cecil."  How many
times did the mediots complain that *THOMAS* -- the biggest offensive
force in the AL over the last 2+ years -- was left off the team????  They
simply don't know how to look at a player who walks a lot.  How often do
you hear about Tettleton?  

Roger