From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Morris: more fuel for this debate
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:42:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.051011.9340@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In <1992Oct7.182747.6462@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.214115.16107@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
>>>In <1992Oct6.144116.1656@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>
>>>>Well, Jim Abbott, with 2.77 ERA (~1.3 Lower than Jack's) went 7 - 15! So, if
>>>>we assume that the PyT is a reasonable predictor, he doesn't look much worse
>>>>for the Angels than Abbott!
>
>>>Mike, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
>
>>>Random error.  When you are working with a sample set of size ~35,
>>>*no* statistics are going to be very precise.  Maybe if Jim Abbott
>
>>Then how relevant are, really, in evaluating an individual's performance if
>>as you say "with a sample set of size ~35, *no* statistics are going to be 
>>very precise"? 
>
>Assuming I'm parsing that sentence correectly, the answer is because 
>you don't *have* to look at a sample set of 35 (W-L record).  In fact,

Well then, let's assume that you've been paying attention. WHY did Nelson
even bother to bring up the Pythag, and why didn't YOU answer him "Nelson,
the P Theorem is useless anyway"?

Your argument is obviously with Mr Lu on this one.

>Yes, a pitcher has *more* of an effect than any one other player, but...

>[Not to mention that the method of assigning W-Ls to pitchers is pretty
>arbitrary.]

Really? I never heard of a pitcher getting a win when he'd given up more
runs than his team scored.

>You can look at IP and Runs allowed.  Personally, I like quality starts 
>as a measure, in addition. 

>>>gets the same ERA/run support next year, he will achieve a 8-14
>>>record.  Maybe he'll even get lucky and be 9-13.  And a 9-13 record is

>>BTW, his RS/9 was about the same as his ERA; he should have been about a
>>.500 pitcher. (as of end of Sept ERA 2.66, RS/9 2.53) You know what? Sutcliffe
>>managed a 16-15 record with a .25 difference (ERA 4.21, RS/9 4.47) Abbott 
>>wasn't close to .500.

>I can explain this one.  He finished with a 2.77 ERA and 2.64 RS.  But
>wait, there's more.  You're using the wrong measure.  He *actually*
>allowed 3.11 runs per 9.  Why?  UNearned runs.  So he *didn't* allow
>about as many runs as he got. 

That's right. He allowed a total of 9 more than he got, in 29 games. You 
really have to space those well in order lose more than twice as many as
you win.

>>Now, he doesn't HAVE a 9 - 13 record, does he? And even THAT wouldn't be 
>>very impressive for a pitcher who gets about as much as he gives up.

>9-13 is EXACTLY what Pythagorean says he should have given RS and RA.

Right, but it is NOT what he has.

>But that's an approximation, given an even distribution of the 
>scoring on both sides, which obviously isn't true.  Random error can
>account for the difference between 9-13 and 7-15.

>As an aside, the Angels had a pretty lame bullpen.  That *also* is going
>to worsen Abbotts record.   (Not to mention a pathetic offense.  I've

As an aside, the Angels were 3rd in the league in save efficiency, and were
tied for 3rd best in blown saves. As for the pathetic offense, isn't that
what RUN SUPPORT measures?

And BTW, on the quality starts you love; THEY don't take into account 
UNearned runs either. Or didn't you know that?

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do. 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball