From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Grebeck, Guillen, Beltre, Knee Injuries...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:51:07 GMT

In <Bv615w.Bwt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jds23971@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Neff) writes:
>dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

>>That's just plain not true. Even if the White Sox have noone at
>>all to drive him in, even if Bell gets stranded every single time 
>>he hits a bases empty single or he walks, these hits are worth 
>>something.  Every out Bell makes makes it that much less likely 
>>that Thomas and company get to the plate later in the game. Add
>>to that the fact that he will score at least some of the time
>>when he gets on base and you see how much a bad OBP costs a team.

>>Outs are precious. You only get 27 a game. A player who makes
>>a lot of outs instead of those "worthless" bases empty singles
>>and walks is costing his team dearly.

>First of all, if you are saying that Bell basically sucks, "Thomas and 

That's a little strong.  He doesn't *suck.*  He's actually a really good
hitter, for a shortstop.  Oh, wait -- that's not the same Bell?  That's
*Juan* Bell?  George doesn't play shortstop?  Oh, then he sucks.  He's a
below average hitter for a DH.

>company" is reduced to basically Thomas because I've seen lots of Sox games 
>this year, and Bell has been the second best hitter in that lineup
>no matter what you and the stats say.

Dammit, the Earth is FLAT!  I don't care what science says!  What do
those scientists know?  I've looked out my window lots of times, and it
looks flat!  (The earth, not the window.) Those scientists don't know 
anything.

>Second of all, I hope you're not saying that if Bell raises his OPB to
>.350 that Thomas is going to get enough extra at-bats to make a difference
>of more than one game.  I don't have stats in front of me so lets say Bell's
>OBP is .290.  I know he's hitting about .262 so this is reasonable.  Now
>lets assume that Thomas is within the next 2 batters to get up when the 
>game ends 22% of the time.  This means Thomas is going to get an extra
>at-bat in .06*4*0.22=.0528 times/game which is an at-bat every 20 games or so.
>Now of those 8.55 games which he would get an extra at-bat, the Sox win
>half of them anyway.  Now figure that he'll only get on base no more than
>half of the remaining times that's two games he'll be ON BASE when the 
>Sox lose.  Now to say that both of these times will lead to a Sox victory
>(they've lost a lot of games by at least 4 runs) is ludicrious.  One more
>win does the Sox absolutely NOTHING.

First of all, you make the ridiculous assumption that 1 game doesn't
mean anything.  The best player in the league (not counting defense)
only causes about 8 more wins than an average player.  One additional win is
a lot.

Secondly, you only calculate how many extra PAs *Thomas* would get,
rather than the whole rest of the team.  (Making the mistaken assumption
that the final out of the game is evenly distributed among the lineup;
in fact, this is clearly, because of differing OBAs, not the case.)
*Anyone*, even Steve Sax, gets a hit 23% of the time at least.  So those PAs 
for anyone are valuable.  (By my calculations, George Bell has made ~35 more 
outs than he would have if he had had a .350 OBA instead of his current .300 
OBA.  That's 35 more PAs for others.  And 35 more baserunners for others
to drive in.)

Furthermore, because Bell bats behind Thomas/Raines, he bats in many
more high-leverage situations than someone like Raines who bats behind Sveum
and Sax.  That is, there are many more people on base when Bell comes up
than when Raines does.  So many more of Bell's outs kill rallies than
Raines's.  

And don't forget that every time Bell doesn't make an out, he ALSO puts
another runner on base, meaning the next hitter -- Ventura -- has an
EXTRA player to drive in.

>Third, you missed my point completely.  Everybody on a team has a role.
>George Bell is there to DRIVE IN RUNS.  He has done this.  To say
>that if Pasqua batted behind Thomas and Raines that he would have
>108 RBI's is nothing short of ridiculous.  Ventura is my favorite player
>in the world, but Bell has just been a better hitter this year.  I'm
>not saying that Bell should be the MVP, I just don't think the guy should
>be knocked for the job he's done this year.

Pasqua has had a miserable year.  It's extremely unlikely he would have
driven in 100 runs this year.  That's quite true.  (But then again, if he
*had* batted behind Thomas and Raines, the 5th place hitter would have
had more RBI chances.)  But then again, "George Bell is better than Dan
Pasqua" is not much of an endorsement.  George Bell *is* better than Dan
Pasqua -- but what does *that* have to do with George Bell being a good
hitter?  

It's stupid to say "George Bell is there to drive in runs."  He isn't.
He's there to help the team win ballgames.  (I think; I could be wrong.
Maybe Gene Lamont knows something I don't.  Like why the $@%#@^ Steve
Sax is leading off.  Maybe it IS part of a plot to lose games.)

Ventura has not only been a better hitter, he's been a MUCH better hitter
compared to the others at his position.  Bell is below average, while
Ventura is the 2nd best 3bman in the league.

The ONLY possible reason to like Bell over anyone else in the league is
RBIs -- which are, guess what, a STAT!!!!! Hey!  You're using a stat!
Call Gary Blickhan's AntiStat Thought Police!  They'll put a stop to that.
And RBIs are seriously flawed, because they give one player credit for the
work of 2 or 3.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!	   SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball