From: dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:22:49 GMT
Organization: Factors of Ys, Inc.

In article <1992Jul27.210127.16933@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:

 [I wrote:]

>
>>       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

>Go one step further and tell me what percentage of each team's total offensive
>production each player made.  That is the issue here.

I thought you wanted to know total contribution.  The value of those 54 runs
that Bonds contributed DOES NOT DEPEND on how many runs the rest of his team
did or did not produce.  Barry's contribution can be accurately summarized as
"about 54 more runs than they would have scored with an average player in his
place".  What possible relevance is there in what fraction of the team's
production this represents?  That's information about how good Bonds's team-
mates were, not about Bonds himself.

How can you get a measure of individual value by dividing by what a bunch of
other people did?  All that would tell you is how much better than the rest of
the team these guys are, using your definition of 'better'.  Or, equivalently,
how much worse than these guys the rest of the team was.

>>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.
>
>Well then show us the percentage of the teams offensive production that each
>each player ACTUALLY MADE!  

Why?  I've already showed you the players total (offensive) value.  Who cares
what percentage of the team offense that is?  The contribution is an absolute
one, not a relative one.  Nobody is going to say "Well, the Brewers only won
82 games, but Paul Molitor produced 42% of their offense, so we're giving the
Brewers the pennant."  Contribution toward winning comes in increasing the
chance of winning individual games, which comes from scoring as many runs as
possible.  (And, of course, preventing as many as possible on defense.)

>Furthermore I suggest that the number of players
>whose MLV lies between Salazar and Puckett is FAR greater than the number of 
>players between Bonds and Puckett.  

Roughly double.

>Bonds had outstanding stats and Puckett 
>had very good stats.  They are both among the elite.  Salazar is totally 
>average.

My point is that, last year, Puckett was *not* among the elite.  He was about
the 18th or 20th best player in the AL, but was only *half* as valuable as
Bonds.  The ordinal ranking isn't important; it just shows that talent thins
out as you get up into the elite classes.

>>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.
>
>No, I am saying that the sum of Bond's "attitude" + individual performance
>COULD be less that the sum of Puckett's "attitude" + individual performance
>when looked at as a percentage of team production as a whole.  

And I still don't understand why you would look at it as a percentage of team
production, rather than in absolute runs.  Total runs win pennants.  Percent
of team production is just a measure of how unbalanced the team offense is.


-- 
        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