From: uiatma.atmos.uiuc.e!hbrooks@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: RP/PA for AL and NL (More bogus RP stats)
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:02:00 GMT
Organization: NSSL
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

In article <BrssqD.KzH@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <BrspAJ.9rF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu 
(Harold_Brooks) writes:
>>In article <BrrqEL.3K7@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
djohnson@cayley.waterloo.edu (David Johnson) writes:
>>[Discussion about (R+RBI)/(Team runs scored) as measure of player deleted]
>>> 
>>>In most lineups a player is going to be used where he can best help his
>>>team score runs.  Whether this is at the start of the lineup if the play 
has
>>>high on base percentage or in the middle of the order if he has some 
power.
>>>This stat shows how effective the player was in helping the team produce
>>>runs.  If you wish this may be more effective to compare leadoff hitters
>>>with others leadoff hitters and cleanup hitters with other cleanup hitters
>>>etc. and i never said it was the perfect stat but RBI's and Runs depend
>>>too much on the players hitting around him.  If you have improvements I
>>>would love to hear them but if you just want to try and explain why it
>>>isn't a good stat without improving it or giving suggestions on how to 
>>>improve it then just say you don't like it and leave the discussion about
>>>it.
>>
>>You aren't going to love to hear this, but I don't understand how you can
>>take two numbers that "depend too much on the players hitting around him"
>>and convolve them in any way to produce something that doesn't depend
>>on the players around him...
>
>But if the players around him don't give him the opportunities to drive
>in more runs and don't knock him in then the total teams runs will not
>be as high as well.  Thus a player on a team who is less productive can
>be compared to a player on a team which is very productive.  

Suppose you've got a player batting 4th in an lineup made up of the seven
successful results of experiments to clone Ted Williams and Andres 
Galarraga (you knew he had to get in here somewhere) batting 8th, plus
a pitcher.  This team will score a lot of runs.  Suppose then, in a 
parallel universe, they managed to get eight Williams clones and the 
Galarragas of that universe are not in baseball.  This team will score
more runs than the Andres and 7 Williams team.  By your logic, the 
cleanup hitter on the second team is not as valuable as on the your
first team, even though they both bat very rarely with the no. 8 hitter
on base and are rarely on base when no. 8 comes up, simply because his
team is better.  That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, to
penalize (or reward) a player because of the offensive contributions of
his teammates.

>
>>...To improve it, I wouldn't use Runs and RBIs,
>>but then you wouldn't have anything left.  As it is, the no. 3 and 4 
>>hitters in any (rational) batting order will probably rank high in what
>>you come up with, followed by 2 and 5, and 1 and 6.  
>
>On most teams isn't the number 3 and 4 guys good RBI men who knock in
>the number 1 and 2 guys who get on base a lot.  By this theory the number
>1 and 2 guys score a lot due to high on base percentage and thus increasing
>his ranking while the 3 and 4 guys knock him increasing his ranking as well.
>By giving guys who hit in number 1-5 slots a higher ranking a good idea
>because they are better players (Either Sluggers or people who get on base
>a lot) as compared to hiters in 6-9 slots.  Do you ever wonder why Pat
>Borders and Manny Lee hit 8 and 9.  It is because they are not a good of
>hitters as Alomar, Carter and Winfield so it is logical to give them a
>lower ranking.  

I would expect 3 and 4 to do best because they have more than one good hitter
on both sides of them, driving in 1 and 2, while being driven in by 5 and
6.  1 and 2 bat when the bottom of the order is (not) on base and 5 and 6
don't get driven in by the bottom of the order.  I can't think of a good
reason to give the 3 and 4 guy a higher ranking just because of where 
they bat in the batting order.  Your reasoning is circular.  The batters
who bat 3-4 are good hitters, therefore we'll contrive a number that will
make 3-4 hitters look good, and then say they are good hitters.  The number
of opportunities that those get to hit with men on base and the fact that,
for the most part, there will be decent hitters behind them means that 
they will rank a lot higher than anyone batting 8th would.  Just as I 
wouldn't think very much about ranking players by the number of men on
base when they bat, I wouldn't want to do it by anything else that is 
almost entirely dependent on where they bat in the order rather than based
on what they do.

Harold
-- 
Harold Brooks (NSSL, Norman, OK) hbrooks@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
Officially self-employed, self-speaking
Andres Galarraga (Through 21 July)  .194 BA  .286 SLG  .234 OBA
27 H away from .300  6 HBP  3 BB
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball