From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Robinson and Boyer
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:07:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr7.010703.15002
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <1992Apr06.211101.4456@cpqhou.compaq.com> carlr@cpqhou.UUCP (Carl Rempert) writes:
>In article <1992Mar26.165836.2236@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>In article <92086.083022DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>>And the statement that errors are "meaningless" is nonsense.
>>
>>(You knew I wouldn't let that go by!)
>>
>>If errors aren't meaningless, then what meaning do they have?
>>
>>What does it mean that Gregg Jefferies made 14 errors in 1989, and Roberto
>>Alomar made 28?  Does it tell us *anything* about which one was a better
>>fielder?  Oh, you say, you have to look at the other numbers.  Ok, fine:
>>Jefferies had 280 assists and 242 putouts in 141 games, while Alomar had
>>404 assists and 316 putouts in 147 games.  What's your conclusion now?  In
>>what way did errors help you make *any* conclusion about which was the
>>better fielder?

>I would tell you that I haven't reached any conclusion because you haven't
>given me enough data to go on.

So take some more data! Sherri's purpose is not to *limit* data, but to
show that ANY conclusions about fielders can be reached equally well
with or without errors.  

>  However, this doesn't mean that errors are
>meaningless in reaching any conclusion. 

Well, show us an example!  Which conclusions are you talking about?  Do
they matter to thingfs like wins and losing?

>  Give me more numbers and I will use
>errors, along with the other stats you have given me, to reach my conclusion.

Again, help yourself.  But be prepared to show that  your conclusions
could NOT have been reached without the use of errors.

>Like how many innings did both players play at the position and how many
>percieved chances did each have.  By perceived I mean balls hit to them that
>would be reached by an average 2b.

OK.  Now suppose you know these things.  Where do errors fit in?  Either
they make the plays or they don't.  Whether due to error or to lack of
range, the result is pretty similar.  Note the stats Sherri posted just
today.

>Nothing in your example proves errors are meaningless.

So show us why they *aren't*!  Sherri's proposed a null hypothesis; give
us a reason why we DO need errors!

>  If you wish to say
>errors, by themselves as a stat, are meaningless, then I might agree with you.

Good!  Now, what stats do you like to combine them with to tease out
meaning?

>But if you are going to tell that errors, taken as a small part of the whole
>picture, are meaningless then we have an argument.

Let's hear it.

>And if you are going to tell me that you base this opinion on 
observation, then
>I will tell you that your observation is at best subjective and does
>not prove anything. 

Well, I suspect that Sherri's observations include a LOT of statistical
analyses of fielding, in none of which errors add anything that makes
sense.

All you need is a single example!  We'd love to see it.

> Your observation carries about as much validity to the
>argument as my observations.  So unless you wish to give validity to all
>observations, lets keep the argument statistically driven.

So drive some statistics!  Show us where errors add gas mileage, or
whatever.  If you can't make that point, we'll have to assume that your
statements about the value of errors are acts of faith.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball