From: genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Cecil signs :-( :-( :-(
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:43:51 GMT
Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering

mjw@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Wolverton) said:
>In article <2531@blue.cis.pitt.edu> genetic+@pitt.edu (David M. Tate) writes:
>>[Explanation of his views on league average]
>>Is this more clear?
>
>Yes. In reading this post, it suddenly dawned on me what the cause of our
>different views is (well, maybe): your viewing baseball as a zero-sum
>game. You certainly *can* view it that way; if you see each "win" as
>(say) a dollar won and each "loss" as a dollar lost, then it is clear
>that a team which plays above .500 is "positive" and a team which plays
>below is "negative". But, of course, that's not the way it works. Wins
>and losses aren't dollars, 

(Dr. Dave counts slowly to ten...)

I didn't say they were.  I said, quite plainly, that they are wins and losses,
and that I'M TALKING ABOUT WINS AND LOSSES.  You know, the *sport* of baseball
as opposed to the business of owing MLB franchises.  Trying to win divisions
and pennants and World Series.  That stuff.

And *that* stuff certainly is a zero-sum game.  Every time somebody wins a
game, somebody else loses a game.  Period.  The only way to improve your
position in the standings is at some other team's expense.

Where did dollars come from?  How many times do I have to say this: I'm *only*
talking about winning and losing.


>For the purposes of *this* discussion, a more valid way of viewing baseball
>is as a game where *everybody* wins -- some just win more than others.

And which discussion is *this* discussion?  The one you are just now
starting?  It certainly isn't the discussion I was having with Ted et al.

>(I should say here that, even if you *do* view baseball as a zero-sum 
>game, where above .500 is "positive" and below .500 is "negative", you 
>*still* want to use replacement level to evaluate your players.  

For some purposes, yes.  I've never denied that.  (I keep having to go back
and delete intemperate things I've typed.  I'm trying *very* hard not to
just be angry, but I feel like you've completely ignored everything I've
written here, and then accused me of making a *really* dumb mistake.)

>A below-average player can still bring you from below .500 to above .500 if 
>he's replacing someone really bad.  

This statement in no way justifies the conclusion that replacement value is
the sole appropriate baseline.  Using average value, it's just as easy to
recognize when it is useful to replace a player with a below-average player,
and a lot easier to tell how much your team will improve as a result.

>I just hope that, by showing that 
>baseball can be viewed equally well as a positive sum game, it would 
>become clear that replacement level is the way to go.)

The way to go for *what*?  It makes a difference.

[Point-by-point replies deleted for sanity's sake.  I never used the word
 "worthless", and wouldn't in this context.]

-- 
       David Tate        |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it 
 Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |  	"Fenway Wall", Robert Frost